Paul Krugman's "Let’s Not Be Civil": An Ode to Intolerance

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Let’s Not Be Civil" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/18/opinion/18krugman.html?_r=1&hp), Paul Krugman denounces Republicans as brutal troglodytes, who should be treated accordingly:

"The point is that the two parties don’t just live in different moral universes, they also live in different intellectual universes, with Republicans in particular having a stable of supposed experts who reliably endorse whatever they propose.

. . . .

So let’s not be civil. Instead, let’s have a frank discussion of our differences. In particular, if Democrats believe that Republicans are talking cruel nonsense, they should say so — and take their case to the voters."

Sorry, Paul, I'm missing something here.

I understand your point, professor, that the two parties live in different moral and intellectual universes: Democrats are ethical and smart, while Republicans (e.g., Rhodes Scholar Bobby Jindal) are evil and dumb.

However, I don't understand why debate necessitates incivility.

Personally, I was impressed by the analysis of Paul Ryan's deficit reduction proposals by Ted Gayer, the co-director of the Economic Studies program and the Joseph A. Pechman Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, who is certainly not an expert in the Republican "stable" (http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/2010/08/06/in-defense-of-congressman-paul-ryan/):

"Given that columnist Paul Krugman relied on Tax Policy Center estimates to level claims that Congressman Paul Ryan is a 'flimflam man' and that Ryan’s plan to address our fiscal problems is a 'fraud,' I think a defense of the Congressman is in order.

First, it is worth citing budget estimates from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). According to CBO, Congressman Ryan’s Roadmap for America’s Future Act would dramatically reduce the build up of America’s debt.

. . . .

On the spending side, Congressman Ryan’s plan achieves these substantial reductions in our long-term debt through such things as progressive reductions in Social Security benefits, increases in the eligibility age for Medicare, and the replacement of Medicare benefits with a voucher starting in 2021 (with an average initial voucher value for 65-year-olds of $5,900 in 2010 dollars).

On the revenue side, Ryan has proposed creating an alternative income tax system that has two marginal tax rates, eliminates most deductions and credits, and exempts all interest, dividends, and capital gains from the individual income tax.

. . . .

Ryan’s vision of broad-based tax reform, which essentially would shift us toward a consumption tax, needs to be adjusted in order to meet his stated goal of matching historical levels of revenue as a proportion of GDP. This indeed poses a challenge to Congressman Ryan to make specific changes to his tax reform plan in order to meet his revenue goal. Reasonable people can disagree about whether we should close our long-term fiscal gap primarily through spending reductions or tax increases, but Congressman Ryan’s proposal makes a useful contribution to this debate."

Republicans are "talking cruel nonsense"? Mr. Gayer doesn't think so.

But more to the point, I think it is possible for two adults to engage in a rational discussion without labeling someone a "flimflam man". Personally, I have always been concerned that incivility leads to intolerance, which in turn can bring about violence.