What is a public intellectual?
Commenter Erik made an interesting point about my Krugman piece:
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.
Related posts:
- Authenticity and the public intellectual
- Where are the liberal demagogues?
- The perils of philosophy in public
- Design as political education
- Krugman on the party divide
ShareComments
Leave a Reply
I’ll have to defer on Krugman’s performance on panels as I’ve never seen him speak in person. My comments below only apply to his NYT column. (I think this focus is justified by the fact that the NYT column is far and away his most “public” venue and the one that marks Krugman as a public intellectual rather than academic or DC wonk.
I think Erik is 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.
As I argued previously, what sets Krugman apart is the sense that he’s making arguments in good faith. While he is advancing his political cause, I myself never get the sense that he’s making arguments disingenuously to that end. His reputation, built as an economist, is what sustains him as a public intellectual.
-John