Ezra Klein reminded me of an interesting point about controversy and academia:
Krugman won it his way: He never retreated into the academy, never jealously insulated his expertise and insight from controversy because that would be safest for his reputation. Lots of folks seem to think that engagement with the public sphere puts a ceiling on academic achievement, and some had even said to me that Krugman had made himself too controversial to ever win a Nobel prize. They were wrong, and I hope more economists and assorted academics now follow Krugman’s model of deploying their expertise for the benefit of an interested public.
I’m not sure that it is accurate to imply that Paul Krugman’s controversial record in any way interfered with his chance of winning a Nobel. Obviously it is a risk to take a controversial stand on current issues, but in the medium- to long term it’s only a risk if, like Jonah Goldberg or Bill Kristol or Doug Feith, your declarations consistently turn out wrong. Taking controversial stands that turn out right, for example that Bush policies are ill-informed and likely to fail, just makes you look smart.
Two illustrate my point two different ways, reference this year’s Nobel in chemistry:
“The fluorescent proteins have revolutionized medical research,” says oncologist and imaging expert John Frangioni of Harvard Medical School in Boston. Last year, more than 12,000 papers reported using GFP and other fluorescent proteins, according to Marc Zimmer, a chemist at Connecticut College in New London and author of Glowing Genes, a book about the discovery of fluorescent proteins. Today, GFP and other fluorescent proteins “are probably as important as the development of the microscope,” he says. That underscores the value of basic research: If Shimomura’s pursuit of jellyfish fluorescence were funded today, says Zimmer, it would be more likely to earn scorn than anything else. “It’s a great candidate for the IgNobels”.
…and this profile of John Stuart Mill in the New Yorker.
Mill believed in complete equality between the sexes, not just women’s colleges and, someday, female suffrage but absolute parity; he believed in equal process for all, the end of slavery, votes for the working classes, and the right to birth control (he was arrested at seventeen for helping poor people obtain contraception), and in the common intelligence of all the races of mankind. He led the fight for due process for detainees accused of terrorism; argued for teaching Arabic, in order not to alienate potential native radicals; and opposed adulterating Anglo-American liberalism with too much systematic French theory—all this along with an intelligent acceptance of the free market as an engine of prosperity and a desire to see its excesses and inequalities curbed. He was right about nearly everything, even when contemplating what was wrong: open-minded and magnanimous to a fault, he saw through Thomas Carlyle’s reactionary politics to his genius, and his essay on Coleridge, a leading conservative of the previous generation, is a model appreciation of a writer whose views are all wrong but whose writing is still wonderful. Mill was an enemy of religious bigotry and superstition, and a friend of toleration and free thought, without overdoing either. (No one has ever been more eloquent about the ethical virtues of Jesus of Nazareth.)
[…] When he died, in 1873, worn out by work, writers in the mainstream press in London mocked him for the beliefs that time has shown to be most utterly right. They sneered at his support for women’s equality, which had fallen into eclipse in that decade; he must himself have been “feminine” to have supported such a silly thing, and his opposition to slavery had been unrealistically “obstinate.”
I remember the ridicule that Krugman dealt with when he remained skeptical through 9/11 and the Iraq war hysteria. He stuck to his guns when colleagues like Tom Friedman chased around the Sunday shows with their nose up the President’s ass, a point that only underlines the difference between Krugman’s intellectual temperament and the more ordinary minds with whom he shares a printed page.
Although the award recognizes work in a field completely separate from American politics, I doubt that the committee missed Krugman’s tendency to stake bold and, ultimately, accurate positions there as well.
Punchy
OT, but more controversy:
Prediction: this will be the next MAJOR outrage on the right. Expect pickets. Expect them to blame Obama for this. And expect the ChicTrib to hire 49 new editorial columnists to write 5,104 stories about just how evil and disgusting this is.
Notorious P.A.T.
Congratulations Mr Krugman!
That would be bad because. . . because. . . mumble mumble mumble–look over there!
Zifnab
@Punchy: And expect no one to care.
Who the hell even knows who Krugman is? Even in the political sphere he’s a low key player. All most wingnuts even recognize is that he’s a "liberal" and "hates Bush" and that he won a prize "just like Al Gore".
At the end of the day, the Nobel has poisoned itself in the minds of the conservative pundits nationwide. But why does a Swedish judging panel give two farts about what a bunch of loudmouth political wankers in the States think about to whom they give awards?
Any noise they make now – during the height of an economic crisis – will be all that much sound and furry, signifying nothing.
SGEW
Thanks for the link to the piece on Mill – I would have missed it otherwise (and now I’m probably going to buy the book). I am ashamed that I have let my subscription to the New Yorker lapse*, and rarely read the mag cover to cover like I used to. I blame the internets.
*I just realized it’s because I didn’t donate to WNYC this year (they give a free subscription to members) because I gave all my money to Obama! Blame Obama.
Alexandra
What you wrote about Mill was fascinating.
I just want to say that I am completely thrilled with the idea of Krugman winning the Nobel. He stood in a fierce wind to tell the truth. He was one of the few that kept us going in the dark times. He is a great hero of mine. All hail the "Shrill One"!
Comrade Jake
Many people don’t understand just how much the currency academics work with is that of new, original work and ideas. There’s plenty of conventional wisdom floating around, but the true stars in most fields are those who pay it little attention.
aimai
Now that everyone hates bush its hard to remember just how angry "everyone" was, including the times, that Krugman had the nerve to call Bush’s lies "lies". I seem to remember that there was a huge to do over Krugman’s calling out the lies in Bush’s fake economic plans and that the times made clear that the word "lies" was only to be used when applied to democratic candidates.
Bless krugman for standing up for rationality and honesty at a time when major, mainstream journalists were cowering in their bunkers afraid that the terr’ists were going to get them if they were insuffily loyal to the boy prince.
aimai
MNPundit
Yes, but his questionable attacks on Obama during the primary have not rebounded to his credit.
Montysano (All Hail Marx & Lennon)
With Krugman’s Nobel, and this post from Sully, is "temperament" the new meme? Let’s hope so. McCain and the whole neocon mindset may now be, as Hannity is so fond of saying, "on the wrong side of history". The pendulum has reached its apex and reversed.
Martin
Just a wee point: AFAIK, the Economics nobel is not awarded in the same way as the others. It’s not technically a Nobel Prize, rather The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. That’s not to diminish its stature, but I think its chosen in a somewhat different manner – only to say that comparing it to how the other prizes is chosen may not be an apt comparison.
Nice to see Krugman be rewarded if only for the amount of time he’s put into teaching the public about economics. I hope he has a raise built into his NYTimes contract.
And yes, the righties will go insane over the ongoing liberal conspiracy. NYTimes! ZOMG!
Zifnab
@Notorious P.A.T.: It’ll be bad because you’ll end up with male cheerleaders. MALE CHEERLEADERS! What the hell would happen if we started letting male cheerleaders into our schools? What happens if one grew up to be President?!
mark
Best post I’ve read on this blog as a reader for about 3 months. Really insightful stuff.
I never understood why being wrong was never punished in public discourse. Not even being forced to admit you were wrong before you can rejoin the conversation.
Nicole
This was my favorite part of that New Yorker article:
jcricket
Based on your long John Stuart Mill quote and your comments about Krugman, surely President Bush is the next to win a Nobel, right? Remember this Powerline gem?
Double bonus plus good points – here is Powerline slamming Krugman for predicting the housing bubble/crash.
Again – I think the BJ motto should be (is?) the Republican motto: "consistently wrong since…"
Third Eye Open
I *think* I understand the logic behind the school, and I applaud the fearlessness that it takes to be a part of the vanguard…
But I don’t think I quite understand *why* there should be a gay school. If the preferred outcome is equality and normalization–and eventual emotional disinterest in the novelty of openly gay people–then why make a spectacle out of it? You’re not going to stop bullying, just take it to a level of rhetorical parity. And doesn’t this just make Homo-High a target for your run of the mill bigot with access to Google Maps?
I would love someone to set me straight.
Shinobi
When you’re right, you’re right. When you’re wrong, you’re wrong.
Krugman and Mill are just further proof that the basic principles of the world are not determined by a popularity contest.
Robert Johnston
Nope. It’s awarded in exactly the sam way. From Wikipedia:
Shinobi
(Also, I oppose the Gay School. I think that Chicago, if they are committed to this, should implement programs of acceptance of homosexuality in ALL local schools, rather than damning gay kids to the "gay ghetto." Also, protecting gay kids from the stigma they are going to have to live under all their lives is not actually helpful to them.)
Martin
Cool, good to know. Thanks.
JoePo
Tonight, Bill O’Reilly will issue a talking points memo where he says the Nobel Foundation has aligned itself with the America hating left and then he’ll urge his greasy-fingered viewers to boycott… Sweden.
rustydude
Very nice review of the John Stuart Mills biography. Thx for the link.
Calouste
@JoePo:
You mean he will urge his listeners to stop driving Volvo’s?
Brandon
This crap about the Economics prize being awarded "differently from the other Nobels" has been hilarious, and evidence of the contagiousness of right-wing memes in editorial opinion.
The PEACE PRIZE has a notoriously different mechanism of deciding the winner, and the awardees have, indeed, proven very controversial. The subject prizes (chemistry, medicine, for example) are awarded by an institution in the swedish government (the swedish academy of sciences) with consultation of the worldwide academic community in the particular subject. The economics prize, not too differently, is awarded by the central bank, with consultation of the worldwide academic community of economists.
Whereas the people who win the PEACE PRIZE are seemingly random, those who win the academic subject prizes are indeed often predicted long beforehand. He won the John Bates Clark medal, which like the Guggenheim fellowship in the sciences, is often a strong predictor of a future Nobel prize.