Cob: Hack on Nader

[Howard Switzer]

THE HACK STRIKES AGAIN!:
KRUGMAN ON NADER
By Edward S. Herman

In his op-ed column of July 23rd entitled "Saints and
Profits," Paul Krugman shows once again why the New York
Times put him on as a regular (for a more extended
discussion, see my "Krugman On Economists As Hacks: Or,
'Mirror Mirror on the Wall'," Z Magazine, June, 2000). The
editors don't like Ralph Nader and want him to disappear,
and while the paper denies him access and prevents him from
raising serious issues, the editors and columnists attack
him on a regular basis. Krugman has now joined this throng,
and it is almost eerie to see how his performance is
increasingly hard to distinguish from that of Thomas
Friedman. Having to write two columns a week, Krugman has
long run out of anything to say based on his own knowledge,
and as he shares Friedman's glibness, establishment biases,
and willingness to misuse evidence, it would be easy to
mistake the one for the other. In this anti-Nader tirade
Krugman hits a new low, using a number of tired put-downs
and smear tricks, but most importantly making charges
against Nader that are, without a single exception,
irresponsible distortions. Before analyzing the specific
charges, let me discuss briefly his smear tricks and his
general analysis of Nader's alleged evolution from
reasonable reformer to anti-corporate extremist.

On the smear tactics, Krugman uses several: first, he
suggests that Nader, the purported "saint," suffers from
"monomania" and "the urge to sacrifice the good in pursuit
of the perfect. In other words, beware the cause of the
rebel without a life." But Krugman never shows that Nader is
looking for perfection rather than the correction of serious
ills, and neither does he provide any evidence that Nader
doesn't have "a life." Can you imagine Krugman castigating a
hardworking businessman, who spends most of his waking hours
pursuing the bottom line, by suggesting that he is not to be
trusted because he is "without a life"?

Krugman of course can't resist mentioning that Nader has
assets, just as the Times, while systematically ignoring
Nader's discussion of real issues, found space for
publicizing that "Nader Reports Big Portfolio In Technology"
(June 19, 2000). These assets suggest to Krugman that
Nader's lifestyle "might not be quite as austere as it
seems"--which Krugman makes sound a bit sinister, but would
seem to contradict Krugman explanation of monomania in terms
of the absence of "a life." More important, Krugman informs
us that more menacing than Nader's possible vices are his
virtues--"and his determination to impose those virtues on
the rest of us." Krugman does not expand on how this
"imposition" is to be implemented and how it differs from
his own policy pitches, or how it compares with the business
community's lobbying for NAFTA, the WTO, or legislation in
general. At the time of the NAFTA debate, Krugman himself
contended that one of the merits of the agreement was that
it would "lock in" Mexico to free trade. Now there is
imposition for you, but as it is something Krugman favors it
is positively desirable. Nader wants laws and institutional
changes that Krugman doesn't like, so he threatens
"imposition." (In a nice touch of demagoguery, later in his
article Krugman notes that Nader says he wouldn't rehire
Alan Greenspan but would "reeducate" him; which Krugman
mentions presumably because of the connotation of
"reeducation camps" and the Gulag!) A Gore and Bush
supporting the military-industrial complex, or Clinton
pushing for NAFTA, aren't imposing anything; but Ralph Nader
threatens to do so. In short, Krugman descends here to
laughable drivel.

Krugman makes Nader out to be an "extremist" because he has
allegedly moved from his earlier practical reformism and
concern for consumers to a "general hostility toward
corporations." An alternative interpretation is that Nader
has broadened and deepened his concerns and analysis; he now
sees more clearly that the corporate system has deep flaws
that need to be addressed. Krugman, on the other hand,
considers the corporate system quite sound and the political
system working well. Anybody that disagrees is by definition
an extremist.

Krugman says that Japan might be better off if it had
"shared our healthy distrust of the claims that what is good
for General Motors is good for America." But Krugman's
"healthy distrust" is nowhere evident in this or other
articles he has offered in the Times. On the trade policies
that have been key issues for him--and on which Nader's
opposition arouses his ire--Krugman and the GM management
see eye to eye and agree that what GM perceives to be good
for itself is "good for America." Furthermore, like GM's
management he thinks the basic economic structure and
existing liberal democracy is quite sound. So if George W.
Bush and Al Gore depend hugely on corporate money and
support all phases of the corporate trade program--and
virtually all other corporate policy demands--they like
Krugman are not "extremists" based on their "general
acquiesce in a regime of corporate control," they are
moderates.

Let me analyse briefly Krugman's more specific statements
about Nader, in the first two I quote from letters to the
New York Times that were refused publication by the paper:

1. Nader was against an African trade bill "removing
barriers to Africa's exports--a move that Africans
themselves welcomed" but which Nader opposed because it
would allow multinationals to run local economies into the
ground. Comment: Did all Africans welcome it? Is it not
dishonest to fail to note that the bill had features other
than helping African exports, like forcing an opening of
markets and investments and even imposing budget restraints
on the African participants? An unpublished letter by Ms.
Njoki Njoroge Njehu, Director of the 50 Years Is Enough
Network, pointed out that the bill was "dubbed the African
recolonization Act by African labor unions and
non-governmental organizations, and was widely opposed by
civil society throughout the continent [she names many of
them]. In exchange for meagre trade benefits the AGOA
requires the U.S. president to annually certify that an
African nation is complying with the arduous list of
conditions only imposed by the U.S. on African countries.
These conditions include cuts in domestic spending on health
and education and intellectual property rules that would
undercut AIDS treatment and prevention."

2. Nader "condemned South Africa's new Constitution, the one
that ended apartheid, because--like the laws of every market
economy--it grants corporations some legal status as
individuals." Comment: As an unpublished letter from South
Africa by Patrick Bond, Darlene Miller, and Langa Zita
pointed out, "At our behest, four years ago, Mr. Nader urged
revision of a particular provision only, which grants
corporations the same bill of rights protection as real
persons (not just 'some legal status as individuals,' as Mr.
Krugman writes). From Mr. Nader, South Africans learned how
similar protections in the United States--not embedded in
the U.S. Constitution, incidentally--undermine efforts to
control tobacco advertising and restrict corporate campaign
contributions."

3. Nader's organization Public Citizen tried to block
introduction of Pfizer's drug Feldene, which Krugman found
useful in his own case of arthritis, despite the "firm
consensus among medical experts that the drug's benefits
outweighed its risks." Comment: A letter by Dr. Sidney M.
Wolfe, of the Public Citizen Health Research Group,
published on July 27, points out that "Our petition to the
FDA to ban the drug was prompted by eight published studies
that compared the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding,
perforation or ulcers from Feldene and as many as seven
other similar drugs. Of drugs available in the U.S., in four
of the eight studies, Feldene had the highest risk of these
severe gastrointestinal adverse effects; in three studies,
Feldene had the second highest risk; and in one study, the
third highest risk. Largely because of this widely
acknowledged toxicity, the use of Feldene has fallen to a
fraction of what it was earlier. Since our book, Worst
Pills, Best Pills lists many safer, equally effective
alternatives to Feldene, his theory that the ban reflects
part of the 'general hostility to corporations' seems
especially fatuous...."

4. After the Columbine school shootings, Nader wrote an
article "attributing these same shootings to--I'm
serious--corporate influence." Comment: Nader's public
statement of April 30, 1999 did not speak of "corporate
influence" in general, it referred to the fact that the
commercial corporate culture that dominates the media, in
the search for ever larger audiences, has featured "ever
more blatant displays of violence, sex, crassness, and
nihilism in television, cable, movies, radio, video games
and music." Nader didn't even mention the gun industry's
efforts to market its product, which would reinforce the
case for "corporate influence." But what he says about the
commercial media's preference for violence and its
deleterious effects is widely accepted and has been
vindicated in research studies by Dr. George Gerbner and
others. Krugman builds his case on a misleading caricature.

5. Nader's and his organizations' work "seem to have less
and less to do with his original humane goals." Comment:
This statement is surely based on the ignorance of a man who
knows Nader has been attacking his precious "free trade" but
can't be bothered to check out the facts on what he and his
organizations actually do. Readers of Public Citizen and
other Nader-related publications know that the reach of
their interests is wider than ever, dealing with numerous
aspects of health, safety and environmental protection,
government as well as corporate accountability, campaign
finance reform and civil rights as well as trade, and that
its humane goals remain intact.

What an establishment spokesperson like Krugman cannot
understand is that reaching humane goals increasingly
demands structural changes in the economy and politics; that
although he is prospering as a professional economist and
Times columnist, along with a national elite, for the
majority this is not the best of all possible worlds. 


-------------- next part --------------
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content="MSHTML 5.00.2314.1000" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>THE HACK STRIKES AGAIN!:<BR>KRUGMAN ON NADER<BR>By 
Edward S. Herman<BR><BR>In his op-ed column of July 23rd entitled "Saints 
and<BR>Profits," Paul Krugman shows once again why the New York<BR>Times put him 
on as a regular (for a more extended<BR>discussion, see my "Krugman On 
Economists As Hacks: Or,<BR>'Mirror Mirror on the Wall'," Z Magazine, June, 
2000). The<BR>editors don't like Ralph Nader and want him to disappear,<BR>and 
while the paper denies him access and prevents him from<BR>raising serious 
issues, the editors and columnists attack<BR>him on a regular basis. Krugman has 
now joined this throng,<BR>and it is almost eerie to see how his performance 
is<BR>increasingly hard to distinguish from that of Thomas<BR>Friedman. Having 
to write two columns a week, Krugman has<BR>long run out of anything to say 
based on his own knowledge,<BR>and as he shares Friedman's glibness, 
establishment biases,<BR>and willingness to misuse evidence, it would be easy 
to<BR>mistake the one for the other. In this anti-Nader tirade<BR>Krugman hits a 
new low, using a number of tired put-downs<BR>and smear tricks, but most 
importantly making charges<BR>against Nader that are, without a single 
exception,<BR>irresponsible distortions. Before analyzing the 
specific<BR>charges, let me discuss briefly his smear tricks and his<BR>general 
analysis of Nader's alleged evolution from<BR>reasonable reformer to 
anti-corporate extremist.<BR><BR>On the smear tactics, Krugman uses several: 
first, he<BR>suggests that Nader, the purported "saint," suffers 
from<BR>"monomania" and "the urge to sacrifice the good in pursuit<BR>of the 
perfect. In other words, beware the cause of the<BR>rebel without a life." But 
Krugman never shows that Nader is<BR>looking for perfection rather than the 
correction of serious<BR>ills, and neither does he provide any evidence that 
Nader<BR>doesn't have "a life." Can you imagine Krugman castigating 
a<BR>hardworking businessman, who spends most of his waking hours<BR>pursuing 
the bottom line, by suggesting that he is not to be<BR>trusted because he is 
"without a life"?<BR><BR>Krugman of course can't resist mentioning that Nader 
has<BR>assets, just as the Times, while systematically ignoring<BR>Nader's 
discussion of real issues, found space for<BR>publicizing that "Nader Reports 
Big Portfolio In Technology"<BR>(June 19, 2000). These assets suggest to Krugman 
that<BR>Nader's lifestyle "might not be quite as austere as it<BR>seems"--which 
Krugman makes sound a bit sinister, but would<BR>seem to contradict Krugman 
explanation of monomania in terms<BR>of the absence of "a life." More important, 
Krugman informs<BR>us that more menacing than Nader's possible vices are 
his<BR>virtues--"and his determination to impose those virtues on<BR>the rest of 
us." Krugman does not expand on how this<BR>"imposition" is to be implemented 
and how it differs from<BR>his own policy pitches, or how it compares with the 
business<BR>community's lobbying for NAFTA, the WTO, or legislation 
in<BR>general. At the time of the NAFTA debate, Krugman himself<BR>contended 
that one of the merits of the agreement was that<BR>it would "lock in" Mexico to 
free trade. Now there is<BR>imposition for you, but as it is something Krugman 
favors it<BR>is positively desirable. Nader wants laws and 
institutional<BR>changes that Krugman doesn't like, so he 
threatens<BR>"imposition." (In a nice touch of demagoguery, later in 
his<BR>article Krugman notes that Nader says he wouldn't rehire<BR>Alan 
Greenspan but would "reeducate" him; which Krugman<BR>mentions presumably 
because of the connotation of<BR>"reeducation camps" and the Gulag!) A Gore and 
Bush<BR>supporting the military-industrial complex, or Clinton<BR>pushing for 
NAFTA, aren't imposing anything; but Ralph Nader<BR>threatens to do so. In 
short, Krugman descends here to<BR>laughable drivel.<BR><BR>Krugman makes Nader 
out to be an "extremist" because he has<BR>allegedly moved from his earlier 
practical reformism and<BR>concern for consumers to a "general hostility 
toward<BR>corporations." An alternative interpretation is that Nader<BR>has 
broadened and deepened his concerns and analysis; he now<BR>sees more clearly 
that the corporate system has deep flaws<BR>that need to be addressed. Krugman, 
on the other hand,<BR>considers the corporate system quite sound and the 
political<BR>system working well. Anybody that disagrees is by definition<BR>an 
extremist.<BR><BR>Krugman says that Japan might be better off if it 
had<BR>"shared our healthy distrust of the claims that what is good<BR>for 
General Motors is good for America." But Krugman's<BR>"healthy distrust" is 
nowhere evident in this or other<BR>articles he has offered in the Times. On the 
trade policies<BR>that have been key issues for him--and on which 
Nader's<BR>opposition arouses his ire--Krugman and the GM management<BR>see eye 
to eye and agree that what GM perceives to be good<BR>for itself is "good for 
America." Furthermore, like GM's<BR>management he thinks the basic economic 
structure and<BR>existing liberal democracy is quite sound. So if George 
W.<BR>Bush and Al Gore depend hugely on corporate money and<BR>support all 
phases of the corporate trade program--and<BR>virtually all other corporate 
policy demands--they like<BR>Krugman are not "extremists" based on their 
"general<BR>acquiesce in a regime of corporate control," they 
are<BR>moderates.<BR><BR>Let me analyse briefly Krugman's more specific 
statements<BR>about Nader, in the first two I quote from letters to the<BR>New 
York Times that were refused publication by the paper:<BR><BR>1. Nader was 
against an African trade bill "removing<BR>barriers to Africa's exports--a move 
that Africans<BR>themselves welcomed" but which Nader opposed because 
it<BR>would allow multinationals to run local economies into the<BR>ground. 
Comment: Did all Africans welcome it? Is it not<BR>dishonest to fail to note 
that the bill had features other<BR>than helping African exports, like forcing 
an opening of<BR>markets and investments and even imposing budget 
restraints<BR>on the African participants? An unpublished letter by Ms.<BR>Njoki 
Njoroge Njehu, Director of the 50 Years Is Enough<BR>Network, pointed out that 
the bill was "dubbed the African<BR>recolonization Act by African labor unions 
and<BR>non-governmental organizations, and was widely opposed by<BR>civil 
society throughout the continent [she names many of<BR>them]. In exchange for 
meagre trade benefits the AGOA<BR>requires the U.S. president to annually 
certify that an<BR>African nation is complying with the arduous list 
of<BR>conditions only imposed by the U.S. on African countries.<BR>These 
conditions include cuts in domestic spending on health<BR>and education and 
intellectual property rules that would<BR>undercut AIDS treatment and 
prevention."<BR><BR>2. Nader "condemned South Africa's new Constitution, the 
one<BR>that ended apartheid, because--like the laws of every 
market<BR>economy--it grants corporations some legal status as<BR>individuals." 
Comment: As an unpublished letter from South<BR>Africa by Patrick Bond, Darlene 
Miller, and Langa Zita<BR>pointed out, "At our behest, four years ago, Mr. Nader 
urged<BR>revision of a particular provision only, which grants<BR>corporations 
the same bill of rights protection as real<BR>persons (not just 'some legal 
status as individuals,' as Mr.<BR>Krugman writes). From Mr. Nader, South 
Africans learned how<BR>similar protections in the United States--not embedded 
in<BR>the U.S. Constitution, incidentally--undermine efforts to<BR>control 
tobacco advertising and restrict corporate campaign<BR>contributions."<BR><BR>3. 
Nader's organization Public Citizen tried to block<BR>introduction of Pfizer's 
drug Feldene, which Krugman found<BR>useful in his own case of arthritis, 
despite the "firm<BR>consensus among medical experts that the drug's 
benefits<BR>outweighed its risks." Comment: A letter by Dr. Sidney M.<BR>Wolfe, 
of the Public Citizen Health Research Group,<BR>published on July 27, points out 
that "Our petition to the<BR>FDA to ban the drug was prompted by eight published 
studies<BR>that compared the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding,<BR>perforation 
or ulcers from Feldene and as many as seven<BR>other similar drugs. Of drugs 
available in the U.S., in four<BR>of the eight studies, Feldene had the highest 
risk of these<BR>severe gastrointestinal adverse effects; in three 
studies,<BR>Feldene had the second highest risk; and in one study, the<BR>third 
highest risk. Largely because of this widely<BR>acknowledged toxicity, the use 
of Feldene has fallen to a<BR>fraction of what it was earlier. Since our book, 
Worst<BR>Pills, Best Pills lists many safer, equally effective<BR>alternatives 
to Feldene, his theory that the ban reflects<BR>part of the 'general hostility 
to corporations' seems<BR>especially fatuous...."<BR><BR>4. After the Columbine 
school shootings, Nader wrote an<BR>article "attributing these same shootings 
to--I'm<BR>serious--corporate influence." Comment: Nader's public<BR>statement 
of April 30, 1999 did not speak of "corporate<BR>influence" in general, it 
referred to the fact that the<BR>commercial corporate culture that dominates the 
media, in<BR>the search for ever larger audiences, has featured "ever<BR>more 
blatant displays of violence, sex, crassness, and<BR>nihilism in television, 
cable, movies, radio, video games<BR>and music." Nader didn't even mention the 
gun industry's<BR>efforts to market its product, which would reinforce 
the<BR>case for "corporate influence." But what he says about the<BR>commercial 
media's preference for violence and its<BR>deleterious effects is widely 
accepted and has been<BR>vindicated in research studies by Dr. George Gerbner 
and<BR>others. Krugman builds his case on a misleading caricature.<BR><BR>5. 
Nader's and his organizations' work "seem to have less<BR>and less to do with 
his original humane goals." Comment:<BR>This statement is surely based on the 
ignorance of a man who<BR>knows Nader has been attacking his precious "free 
trade" but<BR>can't be bothered to check out the facts on what he and 
his<BR>organizations actually do. Readers of Public Citizen and<BR>other 
Nader-related publications know that the reach of<BR>their interests is wider 
than ever, dealing with numerous<BR>aspects of health, safety and environmental 
protection,<BR>government as well as corporate accountability, 
campaign<BR>finance reform and civil rights as well as trade, and that<BR>its 
humane goals remain intact.<BR><BR>What an establishment spokesperson like 
Krugman cannot<BR>understand is that reaching humane goals 
increasingly<BR>demands structural changes in the economy and politics; 
that<BR>although he is prospering as a professional economist and<BR>Times 
columnist, along with a national elite, for the<BR>majority this is not the best 
of all possible worlds. <BR><BR></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>