THE STATE OF PUBLIC DISCOURSE
Paul Krugman versus Bill O'Reilly

We don't really get to see on television an honest and direct conversational clash between the left and the right these days. The shout fests on cable news channels are high on conflict but almost always low on substance: TV thrives on drama, and these "debate" shows provide that in full, but the issues simply serve as a platform from which to launch attacks--it is impossible to really learn anything from watching them. That's why I was really bummed last August when I found out that I had missed MSNBC's Tim Russert hosting what turned out to be the closest thing to a real debate on TV in many years, New York Times columnist and Princeton economist Paul Krugman squaring off against Fox News braggart and bully Bill O'Reilly. You see, I really love Krugman, and I really love hating O'Reilly; missing their debate was, to me, like never having seen Star Wars.

Just this afternoon, however, I did stumble across a transcript of the entire hour of flying sparks. And I wasn't disappointed.

From the Unofficial Paul Krugman Archive:

Mr. O'REILLY: Well, I don't buy that all. And, you know, Mr. Krugman is a smart guy, but Mr. Krugman was absolutely dead 100 percent wrong in his columns two years ago when he predicted the Bush tax cuts would lead to a deeper recession. You can read his book and see how wrong he was.

Prof. KRUGMAN: Actually, you can read it. I never said that.

Mr. O'REILLY: Sure you did...

Prof. KRUGMAN: I said that it would lead to a lousy job creation...

Mr. O'REILLY: ...column after column after column. You made the point, in your book, OK, that these tax cuts were going to be disastrous for the economy.

Prof. KRUGMAN: No.

Mr. O'REILLY: They haven't been.

Prof. KRUGMAN: I'm sorry, that's a lie.

Mr. O'REILLY: It's not a lie.

Prof. KRUGMAN: Let me just say it's a lie. I said they were ineffective at job creation. And if you look at the Bush administration...

Mr. O'REILLY: Hold on, hold on. Hold it. Now 'ineffective at job creation,' what is that? Semantics now?

Prof. KRUGMAN: No, it means that...

Mr. O'REILLY: The economy is based on job creation, and you're saying it's ineffective. Don't call me a liar, pal. That's what you do all the time, and I'm not going to sit here and take it.

Prof. KRUGMAN: Well--no. I'm sorry. You just did.

Mr. O'REILLY: 'Ineffective'? You can--that's the biggest bunch of spin in the world.

Prof. KRUGMAN: Find a place where I said that they were going to cause a recession.

Mr. O'REILLY: You said--you...

Prof. KRUGMAN: Find a place where I ca--said it.

Mr. O'REILLY: Look, you want to call it ineffective in job creation. What is a recession? A recession is when the GNP...

Prof. KRUGMAN: No.

Mr. O'REILLY: ...goes backward. Everybody knows it's going forward.

Prof. KRUGMAN: I...

Mr. O'REILLY: Pounded column after column: 'Disastrous for the economy,"Tax cuts are disastrous.'

Prof. KRUGMAN: No, I...

Mr. O'REILLY: It hasn't been.

Prof. KRUGMAN: I said the tax cuts were not going to be effective at creating jobs, and the job creation...

Mr. O'REILLY: And you were wrong.

Prof. KRUGMAN: ...record is lousy.

Mr. O'REILLY: In your opinion.

Prof. KRUGMAN: This is the worst...

RUSSERT: There has been a net loss of jobs.

Prof. KRUGMAN: There has been a net loss of jobs.

Mr. O'REILLY: Since when?

RUSSERT: In the Bush administration.

Prof. KRUGMAN: In the Bush administration.

Mr. O'REILLY: Yeah, 9/11 did it. Not happen? Did it not happen?

There's a whole lot more of this, and it actually becomes intelligible at some points, so if you want to get an idea of what an actual conversation between the left and the right might look like, you should go check it out.

On the other hand, if one truly values the concept of debate as a way to find the truth, the whole exchange is kind of demoralizing. The left and the right are so extraordinarily far apart from each other in terms of understanding reality, one wonders if there can ever be any compromise between the two sides (and by that I mean a situation where both sides actually get something, instead of the bending over, or "presenting," in which Congressional Democrats typically engage). Actually, I blame the right, but that's no surprise, right? It seems to me like they argue to win, by any means necessary, and if that means quibbling about the definition of "is," then that's what they'll do. In other words, the right wing doesn't really argue. They engage in sophistry, which probably makes it just as well that we so rarely get to see any real debates on TV. Really, debating a conservative is like arguing with a drunk: you lose just by trying.



$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$