Glaeser on Krugman

Ed Glaeser, who is always worth reading, writes a feisty fact-filled review of Krugman’s recent pro-Democrat book. He begins:

Human knowledge is produced by intellectual combat that exposes weak premises and faulty conclusions to withering challenge. We are often improved more by our ideological enemies than by our friends, because our enemies push us hardest. In that spirit, I welcome the publication of Paul Krugman’s “The Conscience of a Liberal” (W.W. Norton, 352 pages, $25.95). The book espouses a world-view that is in many ways diametrically opposed to my own, but the process of intellectually disagreeing with Mr. Krugman fired my own passion for liberty more than the rhetoric of any current GOP presidential candidate does.

Reading it, I decided that I wanted to buy Krugman, and find a publisher to commission Ed to write the pro-Republican counter-argument.

This entry was posted in US Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Glaeser on Krugman

  1. Labor Outsider says:

    What I find most interesting about the encounter between Krugman and Glaeser is that their approach to history is so different to their approach to economics. In fact their reading of history appears to serve the purpose of serving their already held political alliegences. Take the liberty-equality trade-off discussed by Glaeser. While he is correct to point out the sad association of the democratic party (particularly its southern variant) with the suppression of african american rights prior to the 1960s, since the civil rights movement it has been democrats that have been the natural home of african-american voters. Similarly, since September 11 Republicans have insituted an array of illiberal anti-terror laws. Thus, while the Republican party may once have stood for freedom, it is not clear that they do so any longer. Similar biases infect the Krugman book. Thus, rather than wanting to read a pro-republican version of Krugman’s polemic, I’d rather read a non-partisan interpretation of American history.

Comments are closed.