Connect with us

Paul Krugman explains how the media’s ‘fear of sounding partisan’ plays into the hands of right-wing extremists



- Commentary

With the 2018 midterms only one week away, veteran economics professor and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman is arguing that voters can either reject or condone hatred when they go to the polls next week—stressing that “bothsidesism” and “whataboutism” have become “the last refuge of cowards.”

The 65-year-old Krugman’s latest column, published with the headline “Hate Is on the Ballot Next Week,” was written in the wake of three acts of domestic terrorism that occurred within a short period of time: the random, seemingly racially motivated killing of two older African-Americans at a supermarket in Louisville, Kentucky on October 25, a series of pipe bombs mailed to prominent Democrats. and the anti-Semitic slaughter of 11 people at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh on October 27. Krugman pulls no punches, asserting that “all of these hate crimes seem clearly linked to the climate of paranoia and racism deliberately fostered by Donald Trump and his allies in Congress and the media.”

Reflecting on the incident in Louisville, Krugman writes, “Killing black people is an old American tradition, but it is experiencing a revival in the Trump era.”

Krugman goes on to discuss the pipe bombs, noting that the Florida-based suspect, 56-year-old Cesar Altieri Sayoc, is a “fanatical Trump supporter” and that the targets “were people and a news organization Trump has attacked in many speeches.”

Discussing the anti-Semitic massacre in Pittsburgh, Krugman notes that the suspect, Robert Bowers, is “critical of Trump, who he apparently believes isn’t anti-Semitic enough.” Krugman quickly adds, however, that “his rage seems to have been fueled by a conspiracy theory being systematically spread by Trump supporters: the claim that Jewish financiers are bringing brown people into America to displace whites.”

Krugman’s column is highly critical of what he describes as “bothsidesism” and “whataboutism”—meaning that when one calls out Republicans and Trump supporters for spreading hate, some people will respond that “both sides” are doing so and that Republicans shouldn’t be singled out as bigots. Republicans and Trumpistas, Krugman argues, should be singled out because they are the ones promoting “the explosion of hatred” in the U.S.


Typically, Krugman writes, promoters of “bothsidesism” and “whataboutism” will resort to “false equivalence,” arguing that “Democrats are just as bad” because “some Trump opponents have yelled at politicians in restaurants.” But yelling in a restaurant, Krugman emphasizes, or engaging in loud but nonviolent protests or acts of civil disobedience is in no way comparable to the type of hateful rhetoric that encourages extremists to become violent.

“False equivalence, portraying the parties as symmetric even when they clearly aren’t, has long been the norm among self-proclaimed centrists and some influential media figures,” Krugman writes. “It’s a stance that has hugely benefited the GOP, as it has increasingly become the party of right-wing extremists.

“Bothsidesism,” Krugman writes, is “a fanatical cult impervious to evidence….This needs to stop, and those who keep practicing bothsidesism need to be shamed. At this point, pretending that both sides are equally to blame, or attributing political violence to spreading hatred without identifying who’s responsible for that spread, is a form of deep cowardice.”

Krugman concludes that when voters to go to the polls on Tuesday, November 6, they can either condone or condemn hatred and extremism.

“The fact is that one side of the political spectrum is peddling hatred, while the other isn’t,” Krugman concludes. “And refusing to point that out for fear of sounding partisan is, in effect, lending aid and comfort to the people poisoning our politics. Yes, hate is on the ballot next week.”

Report typos and corrections to [email protected].
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Senator Elizabeth Warren leads Democrats in spirited first 2020 debate



Ten Democrats clashed in the first debate of the 2020 presidential race Wednesday with Elizabeth Warren cementing her status as a top-tier candidate and several underdogs using the issue of immigration to clamor for the limelight.

The biggest American political debate since the 2016 presidential campaign is occurring over two nights in Miami, climaxing Thursday with former vice president Joe Biden squaring off against nine challengers, including number two candidate Bernie Sanders.

But Wednesday's first take was a spirited encounter between Democrats like ex-congressman Beto O'Rourke, Senator Cory Booker, former San Antonio mayor Julian Castro and New York Mayor Bill de Blasio on subjects as varied as health care, economic inequality, climate action, gun violence, Iran and immigration.

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Here are 4 winners and 9 losers from the first 2020 Democratic primary debate



With ten candidates on stage Wednesday, the opening debate of the 2020 Democratic primary in Miami was a packed mess. And this was only the first course in a two-part event — 10 more candidates will debate on the following night.

A crowded field makes it difficult to stand out, and that means that even after a big night like a debate, the most likely result is that not much changes. But the debate was still significant, giving candidates the chance to exceed, meet, or fall below expectations for their performances.

Here's a list — necessarily subjective, of course — of the people who came out on the top when the dust was settled, and those who came out on the bottom.

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Here are 3 ways Julián Castro stood out in the first Democratic Debate



There were many predictions going into the first Democratic debate on MSNBC, but no one predicted that Julián Castro would break out from the crowd.

Check out the top three ways Castro stood out from the crowd.


The former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development was the outright winner of the immigration section of the debate

It should "piss us all off," Castro said about the father and his little girl who were found face-down in the shores of the Rio Grande River this week. “It’s heartbreaking."

Castro is a second generation American who got into specifics on immigration policy, calling for an outright "Marshall Plan" style of action for Guatemala and Honduras. He joined with other Democrats calling for an end to President Donald Trump's family separation policy, but he then suggested ending the "metering" of legitimate asylum seekers.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2019 Raw Story Media, Inc. PO Box 21050, Washington, D.C. 20009 | Masthead | Privacy Policy | For corrections or concerns, please email [email protected]

I need your help.

The 2020 election needs you. There are 18 months until the election, and the Supreme Court is on the line. I'm trying to add journalists to do more exclusive reports. Let me get rid of the ads for you, and put your support toward 100% progressive reporting. Want to ensure your voice is heard? Join me and restore the power of hard-hitting progressive journalism.