Nobel Prize-winning economist and Op-Ed Columnist for The New York Times Paul Krugman proudly identifies as a liberal and makes no attempt to remain nonpartisan. His columns are nearly always filled with inflammatory remarks and numerous invectives hurled towards the right-wing, “know-nothing” conservatives. Krugman’s candidness in describing the pitfalls of conservative views regarding the economy, as well as public policy, garners a base of likeminded, staunch liberals who find his columns insightful and congruent to their own predispositions. His liberal readers are compelled by his provocative, frank writing to be politically active on the matters that he is passionate about.
Krugman’s outspoken writing is not intended for conservative …show more content…
In criticizing right-wing ideology, Krugman will often resort to attacks on the qualifications and character of conservatives in the public eye. These attacks are very effective at rallying his base towards action, as it is easier to motivate citizens to fight for a cause with a clear enemy. He creates these foe-like characterizations of conservatives by using his blunt presentation of his views. For instance, in his column “Conspiracies, Corruption and Climate” he attacks Rush Limbaugh, a conservative talk-radio host, for what Krugman views as outlandish remarks stating that scientists invented Irma’s threat for political and financial reasons. Krugman rhetorically asks his readers, “So what should we learn from Limbaugh’s outburst?” before proceeding to answer his own question. “Well, he’s a terrible person – but we knew that already” he states. Krugman is very direct in his assault on Limbaugh’s character, making no attempt to be skirt around the issue. This character assassination only further provokes Krugman’s liberal base. Krugman uses his candidness to create a tangible foe that his base feels is worthy of action. He still is making no attempt to persuade conservatives. Where many writers may utilize the Foot-in-the-Door Technique, where the writer will start his/her writing from an idealistically neutral standpoint then will slowly inject their own views on issues in an attempt
Krugman’s outspoken writing is not intended for conservative …show more content…
In criticizing right-wing ideology, Krugman will often resort to attacks on the qualifications and character of conservatives in the public eye. These attacks are very effective at rallying his base towards action, as it is easier to motivate citizens to fight for a cause with a clear enemy. He creates these foe-like characterizations of conservatives by using his blunt presentation of his views. For instance, in his column “Conspiracies, Corruption and Climate” he attacks Rush Limbaugh, a conservative talk-radio host, for what Krugman views as outlandish remarks stating that scientists invented Irma’s threat for political and financial reasons. Krugman rhetorically asks his readers, “So what should we learn from Limbaugh’s outburst?” before proceeding to answer his own question. “Well, he’s a terrible person – but we knew that already” he states. Krugman is very direct in his assault on Limbaugh’s character, making no attempt to be skirt around the issue. This character assassination only further provokes Krugman’s liberal base. Krugman uses his candidness to create a tangible foe that his base feels is worthy of action. He still is making no attempt to persuade conservatives. Where many writers may utilize the Foot-in-the-Door Technique, where the writer will start his/her writing from an idealistically neutral standpoint then will slowly inject their own views on issues in an attempt