We haven’t heard much from Paul Krugman recently. According to his sporadic blogging, he and his wife (Robin Wells) have been trapped in their house by a downed power line. He has apparently been blogging from his phone. Tonight came his first column since Hurricane Sandy hit. And it shows that he’s been in a bit of a media blackout because he’s writing about last Saturday’s Des Moines Register endorsement of Mitt Romney.
I’ve already written about the huge economics mistakes in the editorial. Krugman doesn’t touch this issue—probably because Dean Baker has already given it the business. Instead, he attacks the endorsement as an example of Romney supporters giving power to The Blackmail Caucus.
Pretty much all of the Romney endorsements that I’ve read have been the same: elect Romney because the Republicans in Congress will behave if a Republican is in the White House. There is, of course, much to say for that view. As I’ve noted before: if McCain had been President these last 4 years, we would likely have more liberal healthcare reform and some kind of cap and trade legislation.
Krugman argues that it is wrong to vote for this reason because it is the same as negotiating with terrorists:
But are we ready to become a country in which “Nice country you got here. Shame if something were to happen to it” becomes a winning political argument? I hope not. By all means, vote for Mr. Romney if you think he offers the better policies. But arguing for Mr. Romney on the grounds that he could get things done veers dangerously close to accepting protection-racket politics, which have no place in American life.
I think there is an even better reason not to vote for Romney: he isn’t McCain of 2008. The legislation that Romney would get through Congress would be terrible. We not only wouldn’t get a better healthcare law, we would get a worse one: he will likely kill or gut Obamacare. We not only wouldn’t get global warming legislation, Romney would greatly increase fossil fuel drilling and likely lower fuel efficiency standards. I could go on. But the bottom line is that being more effective is a bad thing when your policies are as pernicious as Romney’s.
