Paul Krugman's blog post today is titled "Civility is the Last Refuge of Scoundrels," and effectively mocks calls for "civility" after Obama's speech by the sensitive Republicans:
President Obama did a bad thing by calling cruel nonsense cruel nonsense; he hurt Republican feelings, and how can we have a deal when the GOP is feeling insulted? What we need is personal outreach; let’s do lunch!
Readers of both Krugman and David Brooks know that K-thug is going directly after his fellow columnist, who yesterday wrote an absurd Rodney King-esque column about "if only Obama and Ryan could have lunch" and how Bobo "agrees with both!"
One of the most entertaining parts of the NY Times Op-ed page is Paul Krugman and David Brooks viciously attacking each other's ideas without mentioning the other's name. On Fridays, both even appear on the same page.
The difference, of course, is that Krugman's pieces are fact-based, clear explanations of the liberal viewpoint, while Brooks's are right-wing lies and obfuscations, masquerading as a faux "centrist" opinions. Brooks is the ultimate wolf-in-sheeps-clothing -- posing as a "reasonable conservative," able to give a warm, fuzzy feeling to the tote-baggers who watch Charley Rose.
Yesterday was a great example of the contrast, as Krugman praised the President's speech, while mocking the simpering pundits who hailed Ryan's Dickensian Plan:
The plan is bold! It is serious! It took courage! It re-frames the debate! The ball is in Obama’s court! Very wonky! It is a game-changer! Did I mention it is serious?”
(quoting none other than John Cole of Balloon Juice!)
Over on the left side of the op-ed page, Brooks wrote what might be the ultimate phony centrist column in which he first says what a shame it is the Obama and Ryan have never had lunch together!.
Then he lists what he sees as Ryan's five "big" ideas, purports to read Obama's mind as to which of them the President believes, and then (drum roll) dares to say that he agrees with 1-3 of Ryan's points, but not 4-5! How much more centrist can you get than that?
Clearly, Krugman felt the need to respond this morning, and after hitting Brooks with the "lunch" reference, gets to the heart of Brooks' folly:
The main point is, what are we supposed to have a civil discussion about? The truth is that the two parties have both utterly different goals and utterly different views about how the world works.
and, of course, one of those views is based on magical thinking about taxes, and phony deficit concerns as a way to kill social insurance.
Good for Krugman, though more is needed to disrobe Brooks from his "Centrist's New Clothes."