(Also published at The Agonist)
Conservative commentators quickly seized on Krugman’s post. Blogger Michelle Malkin called him a “smug coward.” Writer Glenn Reynolds called the post “an admission of impotence from a sad and irrelevant little man.” A writer at the Big Journalism site called Krugman “vile.” And former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced that he was cancelling his subscription to the Times.
I’d promised myself that I was done with writing about 9.11. Time to move on. Time to stop looking over our shoulder, when we could more profitably be living in the present and figuring out how to create a better future. Then I learned of the generalized Conservative reaction to Paul Krugman’s reflections on 9.11, and I realized that it isn’t about 9.11 for me. It’s about a cabal of whiny zealots afraid of ideas and conversations that don’t neatly dovetail with their preconceived talking points and narrow ideology. It’s sad, it’s petty, and it makes those bleating about Krugman’s opinion look even smaller and pettier than normal…as if that’s even possible.
So what is it that has Conservatives in such a self-righteous lather? Well, perish the thought, but it’s Krugman expressing his opinion on what’s happened in this country over the past 10 years:
What happened after 9/11 — and I think even people on the right know this, whether they admit it or not — was deeply shameful. The atrocity should have been a unifying event, but instead it became a wedge issue. Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror. And then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons.
A lot of other people behaved badly. How many of our professional pundits — people who should have understood very well what was happening — took the easy way out, turning a blind eye to the corruption and lending their support to the hijacking of the atrocity?
The memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion for shame. And in its heart, the nation knows it.
For that, Krugman is being “Dixie Chicked” by those who rage and bleat impotently because they have no real argument to refute him with. Then again, when you’re Conservative, insults and character assassination are ALWAYS good fall-back options if you don’t have (or can’t be bothered to make) a real, coherent argument.
What likely initially ignited the ire of Those-Who-Zealously-Guard-Appropriately-Patriotic-Thought was the title of Krugman’s post: “The Years of Shame.”
Here’s the thing about what Krugman had to say that Conservatives seem blithely ignore: Krugman’s right. By any reasonable, objective evaluation, there’s no way that anyone capable of thinking independently can claim that America has knocked it out of the park over the past ten years. We’ve become a meaner, weaker, and more divided nation…and no amount of slavish obedience to orthodox, reflexive Conservative patriotism can mask that reality. It’s just that Krugman had the balls to put that truth into writing. Conservative zealots like Michelle Malkin simply won’t tolerate the expression of anything that speaks to anything not cloaked in the sweet, self-congratulatory aroma of American Exceptionalism:
We got Osama bin-Laden, ergo, we won.
If it makes Conservatives feel better about themselves (and their America First, Last, and Always zealotry) to live in the house they’ve built on the soft sand of denial and self-delusion, that’s on them. They can wax self-righteous and call those they disagree with all manner of names, but it does nothing to alter the truth of the matter. I would have thought that by now Conservatives would understand that truth is not a fungible commodity, that you can’t massage it into a form more palatable to your ideological narrative. It is what it is, and Krugman’s argument that Conservatives hijacked and exploited 9.11 for their own benefit and self-aggrandizement is spot on. That they choose to ignore the corruption, waste, and indefensible slaughter stemming from this exploitation only exposes them as the empty, thoughtless, intolerant ideologues they are.
[S]ome progressives defended Krugman. Blogger Glenn Greenwald vociferously backed the post on Twitter.
“Michael Moore & The Dixie Chicks were just as right back then as Krugman is today - but today the taboos (& their enforcers) are much weaker,” he wrote.
And, on Crooks & Liars, Nicole Belle said that Krugman was simply telling the truth. “That day was the impetus for us to attack and invade Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with the attacks and posed no threat to us,” she wrote. “To date, we’ve lost 4,752 allied service members in Iraq and over 100,000 Iraqi civilians. How is this not a black mark of shame on the legacy of 9/11?”
That’s exactly the point Krugman was making, and he’s not the only one doing it. I’ve written as much myself, but I lack Krugman’s audience. and so I haven’t been the target of the vitriol he has. Frankly, I’d be honored to be roundly condemned by such a motley collection of reflexive ideologues more concerned with self-serving propaganda than the truth.
Here’s a challenge I’d offer to Conservatives in the spirit of fairness: how about, rather than self-righteously condemning Krugman and calling him all manner of names, tell us why and how he’s wrong. If you’re so thoroughly convinced that his characterization of the past ten years is so far wrong, how about offering a convincing argument as to why you feel that way. The reality is that Conservatives won’t do this…because they can’t, and so it’s much easier to resort to insults and name-calling.
Same as it ever was.
