Courtesy of Mish.
Paul Krugman has entered the John Lewis debate on civil rights.
So far, I have only seen one person make total sense of the discussion, and we will get to that in a moment.
Meanwhile, those interested in another mindless rant from economist Paul Krugman may wish to consider With All Due Disrespect.
As a young man, Congressman John Lewis, who represents most of Atlanta, literally put his life on the line in pursuit of justice. As a key civil rights leader, he endured multiple beatings. Most famously, he led the demonstration that came to be known as Bloody Sunday, suffering a fractured skull at the hands of state troopers. Public outrage over that day’s violence helped lead to the enactment of the Voting Rights Act.
Now Mr. Lewis says that he won’t attend the inauguration of Donald Trump, whom he regards as an illegitimate president.
As you might expect, this statement provoked a hysterical, slanderous reaction from the president-elect – who, of course, got his start in national politics by repeatedly, falsely questioning President Obama’s right to hold office.
But let’s not talk about Mr. Trump’s ravings. Instead, let’s ask whether Mr. Lewis was right to say what he said. Is it O.K., morally and politically, to declare the man about to move into the White House illegitimate?
Yes, it is. In fact, it’s an act of patriotism.
By any reasonable standard, the 2016 election was deeply tainted. It wasn’t just the effects of Russian intervention on Mr. Trump’s behalf; Hillary Clinton would almost surely have won if the F.B.I. hadn’t conveyed the false impression that it had damaging new information about her, just days before the vote. This was grotesque, delegitimizing malfeasance, especially in contrast with the agency’s refusal to discuss the Russia connection.
Was there even more to it? Did the Trump campaign actively coordinate with a foreign power? Did a cabal within the F.B.I. deliberately slow-walk investigations into that possibility? Are the lurid tales about adventures in Moscow true? We don’t know, although Mr. Trump’s creepy obsequiousness to Vladimir Putin makes it hard to dismiss these allegations. Even given what we do know, however, no previous U.S. president-elect has had less right to the title. So why shouldn’t we question his legitimacy?
Spreading Fake News Via Questions
Krugman cleverly does not accuse Trump directly, he just raises disproved questions, while adding “Mr. Trump’s creepy obsequiousness to Vladimir Putin makes it hard to dismiss these allegations.”
The idea that Trump actively coordinated with a foreign power to “steal the election” is ridiculous. Even our intelligence department blasted that dossier.
Conclusion: Krugman is purposely spreading fake news, by means of questions.
Questions, Questions
As long as Krugman is asking questions, I have some questions of my own.
