I've been following Keith Burgess-Jackson's columns on TCS. His analysis of hate in what passes for modern political discourse gets my MUST READ certification -- but with an asterisk.
I think he loses the bead a bit in his ending:
Unfortunately, some of Krugman's readers may unwittingly infer normative authority from his authority in the technical realm of economics. If he were honest he would disabuse them of this and never let them forget it. He would say that the values he expresses or argues for in his columns get no additional weight from the fact that he is an economist. When he plumps for a bundle consisting of high taxes and ample social services rather than a bundle consisting of low taxes and minimal social services, as he did in a recent New York Times Magazine piece, he is expressing a preference that has nothing to do with his economic expertise. At that point he has become a political player or ideologue. But then, if Krugman were honest rather than hateful, he wouldn't be writing about matters that lie outside his field of expertise to begin with.
I don't think the connection between hate and writing about things you don't know about is very strong. For instance, many would argue I'm always writing about things I don't know anything about and -- oh, dear -- time to go to bed before I make your point for you ;)
Posts
