Real ideology or fivolous demagoguery?

Krugman commits an intrinsic contradiction; and if that's too strong of an interpretation, then we should at least call it an unresolved tension. There's Exhibit A:

[I]nfluential people on both sides of the Atlantic heaped praise on the prophets of austerity ... because the doctrine of expansionary austerity dovetailed with their ideological agendas.

Versus Exhibit B:

[P]olicy makers, pundits and, I’m sorry to say, many economists decided, largely for political reasons, to forget what they used to know.

Krugman is not alone in blurring these vitally distinct propositions: Conservative (I would say "pseudoconservative"), anti-Keynesian Western pols are genuinely entrenched in "their ideological agendas," yet they simultaneously, and with aforethought, have deployed these agendas "largely for political reasons"? Either the former negates the latter, or the latter -- as the term "for political reasons" is generally understood -- obliterates the former. Which is to say, either these pols sincerely believe in their agendas, or they are merely opportunistic, pandering windbags.   

I mentioned that Krugman isn't alone in this blurring, since I've committed the selfsame ambiguity countless times. So this isn't a criticism of Krugman, but an honest puzzlement. Are these anti-Keynesian pols of "expansionary austerity" really that ideologically dimwitted? -- as Krugman notes, "any economist ... or for that matter any undergraduate who had read Paul Samuelson’s textbook 'Economics' ... could have told you that austerity in the face of depression was a very bad idea" -- or are they just playing to the dimwitted crowd, understanding, as they do, that the simplicity of Cut spending! is, compared to perhaps complicated macroeconomics, a stirring comprehensibility.

I don't know. It's unanswerable -- or at least with any real and final authority, it's unanswerable. My native cynicism, however, compels the suspicion that, say, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, or Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, aren't really so dumb as to believe that slashing federal spending while in the powerful gusts of economic headwinds is a smart idea. Even the most rudimentary of empirical economics belies such an opinion. Still, such an opinion can be a humdinger of a crowd-pleaser, assuming the crowd itself has for years meticulously evaded all enlightenment while languishing in its Platonic cave -- e.g., has been boobtube-glued to nothing but Fox News' glittering disinformation.

Such a suspicion suggests nothing less than the politically sociopathic on the part of Messrs. Boehner et al. My apologies if that's rhetorically strident -- but maybe, just maybe, profoundly true.

Comments

[Susan Zoon]

"politically sociopathic"

Great book called: "The Sociopath Next Door", posits that you can find a lot of sociopaths drawn to politics and acting- both areas where they can "Blend in".

Scary but true. They will tear it all down in order to control it. They have only self regard and NO CONSCIENCE.

[Robert Llipscomb]

It is self-interest, come greed.

It is not important how much the economy grows and how much everyone benefits. It is important how much "I" benefit.

If you genuinely believe that social safety nets and most other forms of government come as a net cost to you, then all taxes are a net loss to you.

Anything that reduces taxes - even if it just increases debt - is a net revenue to you. If the economy as a whole recedes, it does not matter - if you propser. So, who cares if the housing market goes to hell if it creates an investment opportunity for "Me"?

and if a down economy greates investment opportunities for "Me" and if I can use it to gain political power to reduce taxes - well that is a two-fer.

More to the point, much of the incongruity comes from (incorrectly) believing you are one of "Them" - those who experience a net-loss from the safety nets. Somewhere these people and the sociopaths are the people who need to rationalize their greed.

Finally, economists are people too and are subject to all of the above.

[Peter G]

I see no contradiction. The Prophets of Austerity were right and so were the Keynesian pro-stimulus crowd. The unsustainable fiscal policies of countries like Greece and Spain and Italy speak to the former. Their inability to fund a stimulus in the form of spending is a direct result of their lack of foresight in reigning in spending in the past. An American might well honestly hold the belief that the long term deficit is the bigger problem when compared to a demand driven recession or a stagnant economy. I think such people are wrong but my beliefs are based on the idea that economic policy should be that which benefits the most people and minimizes economic pain. If one does not use that metric then austerity is as good an ideology as any.

[majii]

My first graduate level economics textbook was one written by Paul Samuelson that I later used as a supplementary text to teach high school economics. I think that in the case of Boehner, Romney, Paul Ryan, Cantor, Gingrich and the others, their positions on economic issues are not based as much on ideology as they are on personal and political gain. Boehner is bound and determined to push the Keystone XL project through Congress not because it will create "x" number of jobs, but because he owns stock in TransCanada and will profit personally if the pipeline is built. He couldn't care less about the negative impact on the environment or lives of those who live in areas where the pipeline will be located.

[Peter G]

Actually majii, Keystone has the support of organized labor while it is anathema to the progressive wing of the Democratic party. It is therefore a perfect wedge issue. Furthermore one can debate ad nauseum how many jobs not building it will cost but you cannot argue that will be none. You've got to expect these things in politics.

[priscianus jr]

"... in the case of Boehner, Romney, Paul Ryan, Cantor, Gingrich and the others, their positions on economic issues are not based as much on ideology as they are on personal and political gain."
Exactly. Call them political sociopaths, if you will, they are certainly that, but another way to put it is that they are unprincipled opportunists. Such a type is now and then seen in politics.