Paul Krugman—the current pop culture apologist for Keynesian economics—doesn’t like when Mitt Romney tells untruths. In fact, he went on national television after the first presidential debate calling the Republican candidate out for what he referred to as “flat-out untruths.” However, when confronted with similar “untruths” from President Obama, Krugman was far less indignant in his assessment. In Paul Krugman’s world, Republicans tell “flat-out untruths,” but Democratic presidents only make “minor fudges” of the truth.
Fellow panel member, Mary Matalin, declared the real truth when she told Krugman: “You are hardly credible on calling somebody else a liar.” Indeed. How can a professional economist who time and time again declares deficit spending to be a good and necessary thing ever be taken seriously?
As a sold-out Keynesian, Krugman actually believes that the solution to America’s debt crisis is to increase her spending. Krugman believes, as all Keynesians do, that government economies operate on entirely different rules than individual and family economies. In other words, while Krugman would never admit that getting your teenage daughter’s spending under control requires you to raise her credit limit, this is precisely what he claims needs to happen at the governmental level. It is this lack of credibility to which Matalin is referring.
Krugman is not opposed to bending facts to support his twisted view of government irresponsibility. His defense of President Obama’s debate lying as “minor fudges” further highlights that actual truth is inconsequential to Krugman. He cares little if something is factually true or not, only in how it serves his overriding belief in the Keynesian system. As Dr. Gary North points out: “Krugman never met a federal deficit that he didn’t like. He never met a government labor union he didn’t like.”
Complaining about the debate and trying to portray Obama—his Keynesian compatriot—in the best possible light after his pitiful debate performance, Krugman said: “The press just doesn’t know how to handle flat-out untruths.” As a regular contributor to the New York Times of his own “flat-out untruths,” Krugman should know a thing or two about this. He may be correct in his analysis of the press, but it is hardly relevant to Obama’s performance in the first debate. Krugman, like other liberals who pinned their hopes on an Obama re-election, are stuck in the unenviable position of having to make apology after apology for Obama’s lack of confidence and answers. The debate itself is something “the press” can do little about. The only thing the press can attempt to control is the after-debate analysis and spin. And this is what has Krugman so upset. The press was caught flat-footed in its ability to come up with believable reasons why Obama was so thoroughly shut down. Romney was supposed to be an easy opponent. And we know this because the Obama campaign and the lapdog press told us so, over and over again.
Krugman was more than ready to sit smugly on national television and bask in the glow of Obama’s easy win. When it didn’t turn out quite this way, Krugman and every other liberal pundit had to make up whatever they could on the spot. For Krugman, he had to equivocate on the “degree” of “lies” told at the debate. This is the height of insanity, but it is only par for the course for Paul Krugman.