>July 23, 2000 / New York TIMES
>RECKONINGS / By PAUL KRUGMAN<
In this column, PK turns to consider Ralph Nader, whose presidential
candidacy he's been ignoring all along. (For example, when discussing
Social Security, only Bush and Gore's opinions are deemed relevant.) I
don't quite understand why PK's expertise in economics is needed to do
hatchet-jobs on someone's personality, but PK's employers seem to think
it's helpful.
>Saints and Profits
>"Saints," wrote George Orwell, "should always be judged guilty until
proved innocent."<
We should remember that quote when we encounter those who treat Orwell as a
latter-day Saint George, given the way in which he finked to the secret
police in his last days.
>I don't think he was talking about garden-variety hypocrisy -- although
many supposed ascetics do turn out to have something to hide. The more
important point is that there are other temptations besides those of the
flesh. And those who renounce small pleasures may be all the more
susceptible to monomania, to the urge to sacrifice the good in pursuit of
the perfect. In other words, beware the cause of the rebel without a life. <
This cute phrase gives us warning of the approach of the entire column:
instead of dealing with the movement that's behind Nader, with the growing
discontent with the duopoly of the corporate political parties (the
"Democrats" and the "Republicans"), with the way elements of organized
labor are becoming interested in Nader, or with the Green Party, PK is
going to focus on Nader's personality. (He never even mentions the Green
Party, even though it is that organization that nominated Nader!) He also
doesn't provide a systematic analysis of Nader's publicly-stated program.
Instead, he picks up on a few fragments on Nader and picks up his gun.
We can thank our lucky stars, however, that PK isn't giving us the tired
old "lesser of two evils" argument.
>Some commentators have made much of the secrecy shrouding the accounts of
Ralph Nader's organizations, of the revelation that speaking fees and stock
market investments have made him a multimillionaire, and of hints that his
lifestyle might not be quite as austere as it seems. But what should worry
those sympathetic to Mr. Nader are ... his virtues -- and his determination
to impose those virtues on the rest of us. <
Perhaps my experience with the pundit biz is too limited, this seems a new
and wonderful way to libel someone, while of course avoiding being covered
by libel laws! "Some comments have made much of the accusations that
candidate X regularly beats his wife and has committed bestiality with
turkeys and large armadillos. But I'm not going to stoop to talking about
_that_."
>Mr. Nader did not begin as an extremist. On the contrary: in the 1960's,
when he made his reputation, the striking thing about Mr. Nader was his
relative moderation. Fashionable radicals were preaching revolution; he was
demanding safer cars....<
Orthodox economists and elite pundits have the license to avoid explaining
almost-meaningless phrases with clear negative connotations like
"extremist" and "fashionable" in their published preaching. But in the name
of intellectual clarity, I think it's crucial to do so.
"Extremist" refers to anyone who does not accept the hegemony of the
"center" (the "moderates"), which is determined by the balance of political
power in society. Because of the nature of its creation, the center is one
of those political phenomena which is always changing. Richard Nixon, who
many considered to be "right of center" when elected in 1968, would likely
be considered liberal and left-of-center by today's Reaganite (neo-liberal)
standards. But then, when he entered the White House, he helped determine
the new political center: his accession to power represented a victory of
some segments of the capitalist class over others. In general, the
President of the U.S. and the political-economic elite in general
(including the New York TIMES) define the current "center."
There's another side to the word "extremist." Back in 1984, when I was
slowly becoming aware of electoral politics, presidential candidate Barry
Goldwater was often quoted as saying "extremism in the defense of liberty
is no vice." Back then, liberal society gasped and tut-tutted, associating
his extremism with that of the hyper-anti-communist John Birch Society,
which had reputedly done things like spiking the punch at Democratic Party
picnics with acid (the harsh-tasting stuff, not LSD). Extremism is
associated with violence -- even though it was the center at the time that
was leading an extremely violent and escalating campaign against the people
of Vietnam. (The "extremists" are often, but not always, those who don't
accept officially-sanctioned violence.)
PK may not be aware of the violent connotations of the word (though he's
about my age) but given the spleen of the rest of the column, it fits.
Attaching the word "extremism" to Nader puts him in the same league as
Timothy McVeigh (the Oklahoma city bomber) in the eyes of the elite
readership of the New York TIMES.
The word "fashionable" is a way of putting down any view that's not
fashionable among the political-economic elite. Just as the "radicals [who]
were preaching revolution" back in the 1960s were never really
fashionable, the opinions of those who attended the mass demonstrations at
the WTO meetings in Seattle and the IMF/World Bank meeting in Washington DC
opposing the kind of corporate globalization that PK favors, do not really
hold fashionable opinions. If you want to see what clothes are fashionable,
you go to Paris shows to see which styles are accepted by the major buyers
(clothing manufacturers, department stores, etc.) Similarly, if you want to
see what opinions are fashionable, you look at what's acceptable with those
in power: examine the editorial pages of major newspapers (like the NY
TIMES) and the platforms of the establishment political parties. These are
the fashion-leaders, whose opinions trickle down to the hoi polloi. On the
other hand, Noam Chomsky is always out of fashion.
One thing that's interesting about the word "fashionable" -- like
"extremist" -- is its implication that fashion is _wrong_ (though the
explanation of _why_ it's wrong never seems necessary). But that doesn't
follow. Someone who's out of fashion can just as well be wrong as right.
It's a great content-free criticism.
Sometimes, the word "fashionable" is used to refer to those with
"knee-jerk" opinions, those who opine without defending their opinions
logically or empirically. But PK does not criticize Nader's opinion using
logic or empirical evidence (except superficially).
>But somewhere along the way the practical radical disappeared. The causes
that Mr. Nader and his organizations have pursued in the last couple of
decades seem to have less and less to do with his original, humane goals. <
Here, of course, PK defines what "humane" goals are according to his own
political perspective (which is not stated explicitly here).
>Everyone knows about Mr. Nader's furious opposition to global trade
agreements [which mirrors PK's furious advocacy of "free trade" uber
alles]. But it is less well known that he was equally adamant in opposing a
bill removing barriers to Africa's exports -- a move that Africans
themselves welcomed, but which Mr. Nader denounced because of his fear that
African companies would be "run into the ground by multinational
corporations moving into local economies." <
As usual, PK assumes that there are only _two_ alternatives (my way or the
highway). His way is the Africa "free-trade" bill that actually passed, the
so-called "Africa Growth and Opportunity Act," which not only promoted
"free trade" but also and privatization in sub-Saharan Africa. (In many
ways, it represents the cookie-cutter IMF/World Bank/PK prescription,
pushing countries to cut government budgets, cut corporate taxes, privatize
public assets, prevent countries from pursuing their own development
strategies, and ending food subsidies.) The highway is being dissed and
dismissed as "protectionist," etc. by elite pundits.
Ignored is Jesse Jackson Jr.'s alternative, the HOPE for Africa Act, that I
believe Nader supported. This bill contained provisions that would offer
instant debt relief and encourage what Jackson's people describe as
sustainable, equitable development by requiring the employment of African
workers and investment partnerships. But PK's position (support for the
African Growth and Opportunity Act) can always look better if one ignores
the actual alternative.
For one comparison of the two bills that's favorable to Jackson's
perspective, see http://www.citizen.org/pctrade/Africa/HOPE/comparison.htm.
It would be useful if an economist who knows a lot about international
trade (such as PK) were to do such a detailed comparison, rather than
simply ignoring the unfashionable bill, the one with fewer lobbyists'
dollars and establishmentarian clout behind it.
In parentheses, PK opines: >Most African countries would be delighted to
attract a bit of foreign investment.<
This ignores the key question: what are the _terms_ of the investment? are
the multinational corporations given a free hand, with free license to
repatriate profits, etc.? PK does not address the question. (
On the other hand, would the multinationals really _want_ to invest in
sub-Saharan Africa, a place with poor infrastructure, low education levels,
and rampant disease (including but not restricted to AIDS)? This reluctance
would be intensified if they can't capture all of the benefits of the
investment for themselves. What investment occurs would likely be of the
"quicksilver" variety, moving on to greener pastures if wages begin to
rise. Africa is simply making the pool of competing nations trying to
attract the multinationals' favor, weakening the power of the pool as a whole.
>Similar fears led Mr. Nader to condemn South Africa's new Constitution,
the one that ended apartheid, because -- like the laws of every market
economy -- it grants corporations some legal status as individuals. <
I really love how PK associates the granting of corporate power with the
ending of apartheid! I can see why Deidre (né Donald) McCloskey chose PK as
a target when s/he started criticizing economists' rhetoric.
This also ignores the key problem with corporate laws: why is it that
corporations have the same legal rights as individuals (except the right to
vote and similar, which they don't need, since they have the money) but
don't have the same responsibilities? Why is that when an individual
commits a crime, he or she can be jailed, but a corporation can't lose its
charter for a similar crime? And doesn't the institution of a
limited-liability corporation allow the accumulation of economic power
which can undermine the economist's ideal of perfect competition? But PK
simply assumes that corporate power is self-evidently good.
>Or consider another example, one closer to home ... When my arthritis
stopped responding to over-the-counter remedies, I brought it back under
control with a new regime that included the anti-inflammatory drug Feldene.
But Mr. Nader's organization Public Citizen not only tried to block
Pfizer's introduction of Feldene in the 1980's; it also tried to get it
banned in 1995, despite what was by then a firm consensus among medical
experts that the drug's benefits outweighed its risks. <
PK of course leaves out any description of the risks. It must be
self-evident that they were unimportant and that there's no other treatment
available for arthritis. (There are a lot of other anti-inflammatories
available.) Further, I'm sure that Nader opposed Feldene's introduction
because of perceived excessive political influence by Pfizer. This is
something that PK should be concerned with, since he's interested in the
"special interests" who oppose "free trade" and other policies he favors.
But he doesn't deign to mention this issue.
>If you look for a unifying theme in all these causes, it seems to be not
consumer protection but general hostility toward corporations. Mr. Nader
now apparently believes that whatever is good for General Motors, or
Pfizer, or any corporation, must be bad for the world. To block
opportunities for corporate profit he is quite willing to prevent
desperately poor nations from selling their goods in U.S. markets, prevent
patients from getting drugs that might give them a decent life and prevent
a moderate who gets along with business from becoming president.<
PK again doesn't mention the _content_ of Nader's opposition, e.g., the
fact that corporations have excessive political power.
He also doesn't mention how protectionism for the drug companies --
extremist patent protection -- gives them the power to deny medical
coverage to a continent needing help with a massive AIDS epidemic.
>At times Mr. Nader's hostility to corporations goes completely over the
edge. Newt Gingrich disgusted many people when ... he blamed liberalism for
the Columbine school shootings. But ... Nader published an article
attributing those same shootings to -- I'm serious -- corporate influence. <
I, for one, would like to know the _content_ of Nader's charge. Merely
associating him with Newt doesn't prove his guilt.
>And was I the only person who shuddered when Mr. Nader declared that if
he were president, he wouldn't reappoint Alan Greenspan -- he would
"re-educate" him? <
Of course, only PK and similar pundits are allowed such rhetorical
flourishes. And this whole issue ignores the need to make the most powerful
government agency -- the Federal Reserve -- responsible to the democratic
electorate rather than to the banking industry and Wall Street. PK should
be familiar with the way in which industries capture regulatory agencies
such as the Fed when not kept under democratic control. So he should be
sympathetic to Nader's concerns.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
