Kling vs. NY Times

Once enough other people have repeated the lie, it becomes truth.

I keep thinking:

Those whom the gods would destroy, they first drive mad. 😉

Apparently, people are getting annoyed at you. Your ideas and discourse have made their lives uncomfortable, and they would like you to be discredited so you’ll shut up.

So these self-styled gods, in order to destroy you, are trying to drive you mad.

The lack of comment by those who follow your writing has been noted by some people as approval of the statements attributed to you. In truth, it’s more like when you see those headlines on tabloids that say so-and-so is pregnant and so-and-so is gay. Anyone who knows you sees immediately that the claim is ridiculously false, and ignores it. Why would Angelina Jolie’s friends run around telling people the latest rumor isn’t true? They have better things to do than correct stupid people all day. So do I.

Is this a fair assessment?

Not only are Paul Krugman’s interpretations of the facts more like politics and less like economics, but now his ability to accurately repeat facts is suspect.

Or am I mistaken?

Mr. Kling’s discussion starts at about 40:30 in the video. I read the text of the “unofficial” transcript as the video played and it is an exact match (besides the ‘ummms’, etc.). Those people calling Mr. Kling a racist should apologize. I don’t even understand why there should instinctively be a connection in peoples’ minds between a “gang of thugs” and black people. *That* seems racist to me.

Now, let’s get back to the real debate.

Vindication.

Is anyone surprised by this?

At some point it’s VITAL to talk about the character of these men.

Bet you didn’t even know you were a racist Arnold, it can be sneaky like that.

I am disappointed in certain economists, both here and at MR, for bending over backwards to maintain cordiality with Paul Krugman and Brad Delong. They are shills. Call them out as such.

I hate to spoil things here, since I’m completely on your side in this, but I don’t really see how Krugman’s paraphrase is a distortion.

Okay, you said that it was Paulson’s thugs that were ransacking your house, not Obama’s, but you certainly seem to imply that the new thugs are not good, either.

The real problem is not that you are being misquoted. It seems to me that you did implicitly call the people who are pushing for the new stimulus thugs, and at least one of those people, Obama, is black.

The problem is the same as with the “reparations” controversy. They take your words and draw out implications that no reasonable person would draw. You really did use the word “reparations” when talking about the bill, too. It’s just that no informed person could have failed to recognize that you were referring to post-WWI Germany, not American slavery.

The problem is not that the people who are attacking you are lying about what you say, it’s that their conclusions are completely insane. That’s much harder to fight.

Are you upset that a paraphrase was presented in quotations marks, that the paraphrase doesn’t reflect your view, or that your view was described as bordering on the deranged?

Dr. Kling,

I just wanted to say hang in there. What Wolcott and Krugman are trying to do is shameful. Their behavior reminds me once again of this: “The first thing a man will do for his ideals is lie.” – Joseph A. Schumpeter.

They are so sure of their righteousness, that any sort of intellectual dishonesty is ok if it serves their version of the greater good.

David writes:

I don’t even understand why there should instinctively be a connection in peoples’ minds between a “gang of thugs” and black people.

You know, David, I know it’s hard to believe these days – but once upon a time in the distant, distant, past, Thomas L. Friedman actually was an interesting and perceptive writer.

And in From Beirut to Jerusalem, he tells a Lebanese joke from the ’80s that I find quite relevant to Professor Kling’s predicament. At the time, Syria was occupying Lebanon, and the official government of the latter obviously had a somewhat ambivalent relationship with the former.

A Lebanese civilian comes into a police station and asks to speak to an officer. “Excuse me, sir,” he says. “I have to report a theft. A Swiss soldier has just stolen my Syrian watch.”

The policeman frowns. “You mean – a Syrian soldier stole your Swiss watch?”

“Sir, you said it,” says the civilian, “not me.”

Mr. Kling: Since I’m one of the people who criticized the version of your remarks that were originally published on the Heritage Foundation website, I want to follow up and say that there was nothing at all racist or unseemly in what you actually said. The transcript above, which I checked against the video, is perfectly accurate.

In my opinion, Paul Krugman should publish a correction to his column today, since there was nothing of “the ugliness of the [current] pollitical debate” in your words.

I also note that Conn Carroll has published an apology and has updated his post over at Heritage to reflect your actual words. Regrettably, his apology is an equivocal one. He begins with a snide phrase blaming “the PC Police” for the uproar that flowed from his lousy reporting, and he fails to address the fact that he had approved and applauded the inaccruate version of your remarks — a version that was, sadly, tainted by racist coding and political ugliness.

Arnold, have your attorney call them up demanding an apology and a few million bucks.

I’m glad the shoe is on the other foot, it’s tough looking in the mirror

I’m sorry for the problem this is causing you, Dr. Kling.

It’s really silly.

Not only is this all wrong but it would have so easy for those people who did this to avoid it.

They are not however interested in that. It goes to show you.

You have criticized President Obama. That is a crime under the de facto laws of hate speech, lese majeste, and blasphemy.

Criticism of President Obama’s ministers will, however, be tolerated for the time being.

Mr. Kling;

I haven’t watched the video. So, strictly speaking, I don’t know who is telling the truth.

But you know what? I don’t want to watch it. I happen to agree with those here who say that even in the sentences that those deranged people attribute to you, the racism is in their own mind, not in the words themselves. When I read their quotes the first time, I thought: “So, what?” So I had to think again to finally recall the prejudice that popular culture (movies, etc.) commonly attributed to racists. And also to the fact that people not accustomed to libertarian discourse don’t understand the same thing as us when they hear “thugs”.

But I hope the support of your readers in this blog, who don’t see debate in terms of if-you-are-not-with-me-then-you-are-against-me, will keep you up.

All the best, and please keep up your very good work in explaining your economic viewpoint to us.

Fantastic presentation with some fine points that I’d like to see countered. Count me in as totally clueless to the race issue.

Dr. Kling, good news! Your speech was so insightful, and devastating to the Obama Patronage System Act–er, I mean stimulus bill–that your critics have resorted to made-up accusations of racism in order to distract from your argument!

Don’t stop doing what you do. America needs economists like you telling it like it is, now more than ever (in my lifetime anyway).

I’m glad to see that Arnold’s escaped so far with only a couple of tail feathers missing, but I would point out one small irony. Arnold’s self-evidently guilty of violating the spirit of the law, seeing as how the spirit of the law is whatever is agreeable to a Krugman. If a Krugman complains about you, you’re busted. Be careful what you ask for.

Arnold –

As someone who was actually at the event, I knew right away that they were operating on a misquote. I didn’t remember the exact quote, but I knew that the controversy was baseless, and since I saw those big cameras rolling, I knew it was only a matter of time until all those who rushed to judgment got egg on their faces.

But even with the misquote, anyone who’s at all familiar with libertarian types should know that when we say “thugs,” it’s equal-opportunity.

And what you said about the disagreements between economists today being highly personal — I thought that was spot on when you said it, and it has been borne out in the reaction to your speech.

Your reputation hasn’t been harmed among anyone whom you should mind. Those who rushed to judgment against you, however, are on record; most who are able to recognize their mistake won’t summon the courage to admit it, and the judgment against them is final.

And by the way, it was a pleasure meeting you after the panel. I enjoyed your presentation most of all.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
kurbla –

Do you believe that nothing is rightly detested, or that people should stay quiet about things they detest? You say “it is important”, but that begs the question, “to whom?” If you’re merely stating your personal preference, say so. If there are other negative consequences to using words like “thug” and “yank” and warning other people not to tread on our children’s lives, please tell us about them and let us decide how important it really is.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
William –

“The real problem is not that you are being misquoted.”

I think you’ll agree that it’s part of the problem. The context provided by the full, correct quote makes it harder to sell the conclusion that Kling is a racist.

Bryan: You say “it is important”, but that begs the question, “to whom?”

Building emotions on the way Arnold did is appropriate if one think that violent resolution of disagreement is the best or only possible option. Speaking that way one prepares his side for fight. In the same time he demotivates people from opposite side to switch sides – they stop listen and start preparing for fight as well. If both sides start to repeat thug, thug then some real throat cutting will begin to happen. Using calm and rational tone, one has better chance to attract some moderates from the other side.

Fortunately, when I google “Arnold Kling racist” (without quotes), The first link is to this post, and almost all the others on the first page are outraged by the ridiculous charge.

It’s still an appalling charge, but I don’t think anybody who does any investigation is likely to conclude that it’s true.

Small comfort. But, something.

The sad fact is that it really doesn’t matter if you are right and if they all lied. Even the suggestion that you were one connected with these allegations is enough to ensure that you will likely not be appointed by any politician for any prominent role. I am sorry, and I am on your side, but I simply think that is the case. It would perhaps even effect university appointments. The whole thing sucks, and I’m sorry you were the victim of a malicious smear campaign.