Wednesday, October 22, 2003
By now, half the political blogosphere has written about this, and nothing I say will be new, but I felt I should chime in my disgust at Paul Krugman's recent stab at a column, Listening to Mahathir
It's been some time since I read Krugman regularly. Among columnists, he's a fairly bitter read. It's funny what a difference a change of administration makes, since Krugman reminds me of what Bill Safire was like during the Clinton Administration. Safire now seems peppier, with a spark in his eyes, and an unsettling habit of having conversations with the dead Richard Nixon. Krugman is remarkably bitter and angry and fixated by his Bush hatred.
So much so, that the lifelong anti-Semitism of Malaysia's Mohammed Mahathir is just another reflection of Bush's failings.
Let's quote, shall we?
The fact is that Mr. Mahathir, though guilty of serious abuses of power, is in many ways about as forward-looking a Muslim leader as we're likely to find.
In the last 5 years, Mahathir has clamped down rather viciously, including his imprisoning of his own deputy, Anwar Mohammed on a charge of sodomy. Compare him to King Abdullah of Jordan, or King Mohammed of Morocco - both genuine and heartfelt reformers. Or the emir of Qatar, whose tolerance for dissenting views has led to Al Jazeera.
So what's with the anti-Semitism? Almost surely it's part of Mr. Mahathir's domestic balancing act, something I learned about the last time he talked like this, during the Asian financial crisis of 1997-98.
Examination of Mahathir's record by others indicates that this is a rather heartfelt sentiment on his part. As was commonly joked during the currency crisis, there weren't enough Jews in Malaysia to fill a synagogue. If these appeals are useful politically, it's because he has worked to make them so, not because they constitute a "Get out of Jail Free" card he can play every 5 years and leave alone otherwise.
Now Mr. Mahathir thinks that to cover his domestic flank, he must insert hateful words into a speech mainly about Muslim reform. That tells you, more accurately than any poll, just how strong the rising tide of anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism among Muslims in Southeast Asia has become. Thanks to its war in Iraq and its unconditional support for Ariel Sharon, Washington has squandered post-9/11 sympathy and brought relations with the Muslim world to a new low.
How does he know what Mahathir thinks? He clearly doesn't know jack, either about Mahathir or his record. For starters, Mahathir is retiring at the end of the month - his incentive to make these appeals is what again?
Worse is the automatic linkage between Mahathir's base appeal and Bush and Sharon (the term "unconditional" while US pressure is the only force keeping Yasser Arafat at liberty shows how much Krugman knows about the Middle East) reveals a shockingly shoddy analysis. By refusing to engage the question of Mahathir's record - or for that matter, the torrent of bigotry spewing from the Islamic world - Krugman shows us that he is incapable of thinking past his phobia toward Bush. By diverting his column at the end to the fundamentalist US General William Boykin, he hammers that home.
Some things in this world occur independently of Bush and Cheney. They demand hard analysis, even criticism independent of one's views about Bush. Paul Krugman is too mediocre a columnist to rise to this responsibility.
It's been some time since I read Krugman regularly. Among columnists, he's a fairly bitter read. It's funny what a difference a change of administration makes, since Krugman reminds me of what Bill Safire was like during the Clinton Administration. Safire now seems peppier, with a spark in his eyes, and an unsettling habit of having conversations with the dead Richard Nixon. Krugman is remarkably bitter and angry and fixated by his Bush hatred.
So much so, that the lifelong anti-Semitism of Malaysia's Mohammed Mahathir is just another reflection of Bush's failings.
Let's quote, shall we?
The fact is that Mr. Mahathir, though guilty of serious abuses of power, is in many ways about as forward-looking a Muslim leader as we're likely to find.
In the last 5 years, Mahathir has clamped down rather viciously, including his imprisoning of his own deputy, Anwar Mohammed on a charge of sodomy. Compare him to King Abdullah of Jordan, or King Mohammed of Morocco - both genuine and heartfelt reformers. Or the emir of Qatar, whose tolerance for dissenting views has led to Al Jazeera.
So what's with the anti-Semitism? Almost surely it's part of Mr. Mahathir's domestic balancing act, something I learned about the last time he talked like this, during the Asian financial crisis of 1997-98.
Examination of Mahathir's record by others indicates that this is a rather heartfelt sentiment on his part. As was commonly joked during the currency crisis, there weren't enough Jews in Malaysia to fill a synagogue. If these appeals are useful politically, it's because he has worked to make them so, not because they constitute a "Get out of Jail Free" card he can play every 5 years and leave alone otherwise.
Now Mr. Mahathir thinks that to cover his domestic flank, he must insert hateful words into a speech mainly about Muslim reform. That tells you, more accurately than any poll, just how strong the rising tide of anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism among Muslims in Southeast Asia has become. Thanks to its war in Iraq and its unconditional support for Ariel Sharon, Washington has squandered post-9/11 sympathy and brought relations with the Muslim world to a new low.
How does he know what Mahathir thinks? He clearly doesn't know jack, either about Mahathir or his record. For starters, Mahathir is retiring at the end of the month - his incentive to make these appeals is what again?
Worse is the automatic linkage between Mahathir's base appeal and Bush and Sharon (the term "unconditional" while US pressure is the only force keeping Yasser Arafat at liberty shows how much Krugman knows about the Middle East) reveals a shockingly shoddy analysis. By refusing to engage the question of Mahathir's record - or for that matter, the torrent of bigotry spewing from the Islamic world - Krugman shows us that he is incapable of thinking past his phobia toward Bush. By diverting his column at the end to the fundamentalist US General William Boykin, he hammers that home.
Some things in this world occur independently of Bush and Cheney. They demand hard analysis, even criticism independent of one's views about Bush. Paul Krugman is too mediocre a columnist to rise to this responsibility.
