Authenticity and the public intellectual
The New Yorker has a worthwhile profile of Paul Krugman. It traces his transformation from a dedicated and accomplished academic who scorned politics to the NYT firebrand we know today. When thinking about Krugman’s appeal, part of it might well be that he doesn’t seem to want to confront the right on a weekly basis. He’d rather be writing academic papers or relaxing in the Caribbean. At a time when it seems that everyone wants their 20 minutes as a “Democratic/Republican Strategist” on the news networks, Krugman stands out as a figure who doesn’t seem to crave more publicity. (Behind his content demeanor, of course, lies the fact that he’s ascended to the pinnacle of both academic economics and political commentary, leaving him really nothing else to aspire to.)
Krugman seems to still see himself as a kind of guard against poverty in the public discourse on economics. He seems just as able to criticize the left as the right, when he sees need; the bio reminds us that Krugman was a vocal opponent of Obama in the democratic primaries. But of course, Krugman is and will always be identified strongly with the left. As his tone has become more partisan, it’s clear that his role is not simply to correct economic misinformation, but to play his own part in moving the discourse.
What has made Krugman a successful public intellectual? Certainly his engaging writing style plays a part, but there are certainly other economists who could manage the same skill. And it’s not simply his vigor in defending his position; those “____ Strategists” can muster more of that. Krugman has been able to meld wonkery with partisan advocacy in a way that makes him one of the few commentators that feels in any way authentic without grandstanding for a cause. It may be impossible to replicate this authenticity without having first accomplished what Krugman has in his field, but commentators looking to survive more than a few news cycles should take note.
-John
Related posts:
- What is a public intellectual?
- Obama follows the Public Philosopher
- Are guns covered in the public option?
- Krugman on the party divide
- On the site of public philosophy
ShareComments
3 Responses to “Authenticity and the public intellectual”
Leave a Reply
While you make an (interesting) case for Krugman as a “successful public intellectual”, I don’t think it ultimately succeeds. There is no doubt that Krugman is a first-rate economist, and perhaps, one of the best trade economists of all time.
Having said that, I believe being an even-handed evaluator of ideas is necessary to be a “successful public intellectual.” Krugman falls down on this account. While he sometimes criticizes the left and right alike, most often he brushes aside counter arguments through best at intellectual sophistry, and worst through repeated ad hominum attacks. I have seen him on many panels, and each time he speaks, I don’t come away with a feeling that he has honestly engaged the issue more than using it as a podium to pound his ideological position. Indeed, Isaiah Berlin, perhaps one of the best public intellectuals of all time, was respected for listening and responding thoughtfully to his critics. If that’s even a consideration in determining a public intellectual, Krugman fails miserably.
Hi Erik, thanks for the comment. I’ll have to differ to you on Krugman’s performance on panels as I’ve never seen him speak in person. My comments below only apply to his NYT column which is also the most “public” of his forums.
I think you’re right that a public intellectual needs to engage the arguments of his or her opponents. To the extent that Krugman doesn’t do this, he should. But, I’m not sure that a public intellectual needs to be “even-handed.” Krugman is, politically, a liberal, and it’s clear that he brings those commitments with him to his work.
I also think that Krugman’s goals in his public work (as opposed to academic work) are political. He’s trying to convince an audience of something. To do this, your certainly want to address relevant counter-arguments, but you don’t necessarily need to address all of them. This may knock you down in the “even-handed” department, but I’m not sure that’s the goal.
I stand by my initial conclusions that 1) Krugman has been successful and 2) that his success is due to his technical skill combined with a sense of authenticity.
[...] Erik made an interesting point about my Krugman piece: While you make an (interesting) case for Krugman as a “successful public intellectual”, I [...]