« Behold! The 2012 Pig Book is now available. | Main | Witness the plummeting government spending under Obama. »

Somehow Bloomberg was able to bring onto their show Ron Paul and Paul Krugman to "face-off" in a debate. It's twenty minutes long, with worthwhile links below the video:

Here's Paul Krugman's first comments on his blog post-debate:

"I responded that I am not a defender of the economic policies of the Emperor Diocletian."

Here's Krugman's second set of comments:

Think about it: you approach what is, in the end, a somewhat technical subject in a format in which no data can be presented, in which there's no opportunity to check facts (everything Paul said about growth after World War II was wrong, but who will ever call him on it?). So people react based on their prejudices. If Ron Paul got on TV and said "Gah gah goo goo debasement! theft!" -- which is a rough summary of what he actually did say -- his supporters would say that he won the debate hands down; I don't think my supporters are quite the same, but opinions may differ.

And finally, here's Kevin Drum on the whole spectacle:

Krugman is right, but I think he's also missing the point here. Wars of ideas are typically won in print: in journals, in books, in magazine articles, and in monographs. The audience is fellow professionals in your field, the language is often technical and abstruse, and you keep score by counting citations, being invited to conferences, and amassing disciples.

Public debates, including their gruesome modern variant, the three-minute hit on cable TV, aren't about that. They're solely designed to influence public opinion, and you keep score at the ballot box. Nobody cares if Ron Paul is technically right about the Romans debasing their currency, and nobody cares whether that really has anything to do with the modern global economy. All that matters is whether he's found an analogy that moves a few of the rubes to his side. Truth isn't just an obstacle in public debates, it's a handicap.

If you want to increase your understanding of a subject, public debates are worthless. But that's because that isn't their purpose. Their purpose is emotional appeal, and understanding actively gets in the way of that. Ron Paul already knows that. I hope Krugman does too.

Yes, most debates are worthless with respect to getting to the meat of the issues; and yet sometimes, just sometimes, especially during Presidential debates, we get morsels of facts that leap out at us and shape our views. That's why we keep having them.

Plus, we can't help ourselves -- we must constantly communicate and debate. Let's face it: we're plain and simple nothing more than social animals.

Name (required)
Email
Website
Remember personal info? Yes   No
Comments

home | music | democracy | earth | money | projects | about | contact

Site design by Matthew Fries | © 2003-23 Consilience Productions. All Rights Reserved.
Consilience Productions, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization.
All contributions are fully tax deductible.