Krugman, Krauthammer, And Obama’s Anti-Politics

As seminal figures of the American left and right, the intellectual affinities between Paul Krugman and Charles Krauthammer would seem to be few, if any. In June, for example, Krugman wrote about the role played by Fox News in the mainstreaming of conservative extremism, while Krauthammer, who makes frequent appearances on the station, hailed it for shattering the ideological stranglehold of the liberal media. Also recently (as if some further indication of their differences were needed), Krugman called for the investigation and possible prosecution of Bush administration officials over the ‘interrogation tactics’ used in the war on terror. Krauthammer, for his part, took the opportunity to restate his qualified justification of torture.

Substantial opposition in posture and policy notwithstanding, I think there’s something shared by Krugman and Krauthammer in their commentary of late, with both attacking what could be called Barack Obama’s anti-politics, by which I mean the president’s post-partisan, pragmatic-and-therefore-nonideological style. Of course, in that their shared aversion to anti-politics probably stems from different sources and is definitely put to different effect, the chances of overstating their common ground are great. Nonetheless, I think both writers have something important to say about the limits of consensus politics and the folly of collective certitude.

Krugman has been one of the most persistent left-leaning critics of Obama from the consensus angle. In May, for example, he voiced skepticism over Obama’s seeming belief that partisanship has been the primary cause of stalled health care reform. “Back during the Democratic primary campaign,” he wrote, “Mr. Obama argued that the Clintons had failed in their 1993 attempt to reform health care because they had been insufficiently inclusive. He promised instead to gather all the stakeholders, including the insurance companies, around a ‘big table’.” But, Krugman asked then, “what if interest groups showed up at the big table, then blocked reform?” In this situation (i.e., the one we presently face), inclusion might not be conducive to solving the health care crisis, but rather the very ingredient for prolonging it. Given the existence of a powerful opposition determined to derail meaningful reform, Krugman’s hope (and mine) is that Obama will not be so, well, anti-political when the chips are down. “Will Mr. Obama gloss over the reality of what’s happening, and try to preserve the appearance of cooperation?” Krugman wondered aloud. “Or will he honor his own pledge, made back during the campaign, to go on the offensive against special interests if they stand in the way of reform?”

At first glance, it seems that Krugman’s aversion to anti-politics is simply a matter of efficacy: either Obama maintains his post-partisan stance, or he prevails in the health care battle. I suspect, however, that Krugman rejects Obama’s consensus rhetoric not only on instrumental grounds, but more intrinsic ones as well. This is where Krauthammer comes in. While he is convinced, despite all indicators to the contrary, that the president is a radical social engineer, Krauthammer does highlight a repugnant scientism that Obama mostly, but does not always, avoid. “This is not just intellectual laziness,” he wrote of Obama in March. “It is the moral arrogance of a man who continuously dismisses his critics as ideological while he is guided exclusively by pragmatism (in economics, social policy, foreign policy) and science in medical ethics.” By speaking from a position that has purportedly transcended conflict, Obama conceals the ineliminably aesthetic, discretionary or irrational dimension of all political decision-making. Of course, there’s a popular consensus about health care and other issues; it’s this consensus that put Obama and the Democrats in office. But this consensus in no way implies unanimity; there is no single right solution to the political crises we face. Acknowledging as much does not mean conceding that Obama’s answers are fully ‘arbitrary’, as it were. Rather, it expresses that we, and not some transcendent, extrasocial source of authority – Reason, History, Nature – are responsible for our political decisions, institutions and limitations.