Krugman vs. Brooks

It’s been noticed that Paul Krugman and David Brooks are having a back-and-forth fight over the extent to which Ronald Reagan was appealing to racist sentiments in his Presidential campaign. Only neither one is allowed to comment on the other by name. So, Krugman ends up writing things like:

So there’s a campaign on to exonerate Ronald Reagan from the charge that he deliberately made use of Nixon’s Southern strategy

even though the campaign primarily consist of Brooks. At this point, the nerdier part of me (the one that saw Randall Munroe of xkcd fame speak yesterday), one hopes that they’re primarily continuing the debate just in order to make the Times’ policy look silly. I can’t see any other reason for Brooks to continue: when you’re stuck defending someone who’d use the phrase “strapping young buck” from charges of racism, you really should look for a better job.


3 responses to “Krugman vs. Brooks

  1. I keep reading this as Krugman v Books and thinking “What does Krugman have against books?”. Oops.

    Also, hi. I’m stalking you.

    Also, I heard you’re moving to the Mexican War Streets. Lame.

  2. hyperpapeterie

    Unless you want to fess up to other nefarious activities, this doesn’t yet rise to the level of stalking.

    The Mexican War Streets is a true thing, and I think it will not be lame.

  3. No, no other nefarious activities to report.

    And yes, moving that far away from the awesomeness that is Bloomfield (me) is lame. But, I’m glad to hear that your house is nice. When am I invited over for dinner?