[PREV - TANENHAUS]    [TOP]

KENNEDYS_CONSCIENCE

                                             September 21, 2013

A classic in the politically-motivated book
review genere: the review of Krugman's
"Conscience of a Liberal", by David Kennedy
of the Stanford History Department:

  http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/21/books/review/Kennedy-t.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all

He leads off with a mangled quote and a dim
understanding of both economics and economic history,
suggesting that all real economists are free market
fanatics; he dismisses Krugman for "factual errors"
about history, and points only at (1) a typo on a date,
and (2) raises a very minor issue where it's arguable
that Krugman actually had it right-- and it matters
little if Krugman got it wrong.

David Kennedy at first appears to be trying to attack
Krugman's argument that the Republicans have had their
brains eaten by extremists, but then concedes the
point in the conclusion, where he nevertheless trots
out a rather strange accusation that Krugman is
engaging in "shrill" polemics (comparing him the Rush
Limbaugh, etc).

He closes on the line:

  "Where is the distinguished
  economist when we need him?"

The obvious response is "where are the distinguished historians?"

Krugman has a claim based on certain evidence,
that racial issues are essentially the sole
determinant of US politics.  Does the evidence
hold up or not?

There's a lot of sarcasm and condescension going on
in Kennedy's review, but very little in the way of
historical argument, except one interesting grab
bag of claims that Democrats did various things to
rile the hoi polloi besides not being white enough.


Brad de Long points out that he lead off with a mangled
understanding of what Francis Amasa Walker actually said:

  http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2007/10/ah-stanfords-da.html


A comment at delong's:

  knut wicksell:

  "here's my take on DK's miserable review. The NYT chose a historian
  because Paul wrote an interpretation of American history since the
  Gilded Age that has certain features recalling Charles Beard's
  account (which fell out of favour in the 1960s). They chose an
  American historian to do the review, which makes sense. What
  doesn't make sense is choosing Kennedy, who is not particularly
  knowledgeable in American economic and social history. There are
  any number of reviewers who could have given Paul's work a critical
  examination. Kennedy simply tried to do a demolition job. He really
  shouldn't go up against people who are smarter than him, and that
  includes most of us here on this blog."






--------
[NEXT - FROM_BOTH_SIDES_NOW]