Krugman: Not Being A Democrat Is "Immoral"

Well, at least he owns up to his undemocratic "ideals"

The only way we’re going to get action, I’d suggest, is if those who stand in the way of action [i.e. "action" considered desirable by Democrats] come to be perceived as not just wrong but immoral.

What a scum bag. (Krugman is supposed to be "bright"?)

Here is what Prometheus has to say about politics ala Krugman:

In the climate debate the litmus test for having the proper morality (i.e., defined as not "standing in the way of action," by being a "denier" or "delayer" or [insert derisive moral judgment here]) is by holding and expressing (and not questioning) certain acceptable beliefs, such as:

*Not questioning any consensus views of the IPCC (in any working group)

*Not supporting adaptation

*Not emphasizing the importance of significant technological innovation

*Not pointing out that policies to create higher priced energy are a certain losing strategy

Deviation for these beliefs is, blasphemy -- heresy! Or as Paul Krugman recommends . . . immoral.

Climate change is the new locus of the U.S. culture wars. Unlike the abortion issue which was turned into a referendum on morality by the political right, the climate issue is fast becoming a referendum on morality by the political left.

All of this is dead on. Where I would differ is in the idea that this is limited to the "climate change" debate. (The phrase "climate change" is in quotes because it is so idiotic. It's like having a "cold ice" debate, or a "wet water" debate.)

It must be noted, in the "climate change" debate, the one thing that must never be questioned is the Democrats misunderstanding of the facts. As Stubborn Facts points out:

Climate Science blog points us at an applied examination of the predictive ability and thus credibility of the climate models used by IPCC and others to establish the pseudo-religious case for runaway anthropogenic global warming, as published in the Hydrologic Sciences Journal. From the abstract:

Geographically distributed predictions of future climate, obtained through climate models, are widely used in hydrology and many other disciplines, typically without assessing their reliability. Here we compare the output of various models to temperature and precipitation observations from eight stations with long (over 100 years) records from around the globe. The results show that models perform poorly, even at a climatic (30-year) scale.

Stupid immoral scientists! They haven't had their "science" checked for ideological purity! Head shaman Krugman will be displeased.

UPDATED AND BUMPED:

I just wanted to add that this approach by Krugman is nothing new in this election cycle. It is a growing them among a lot of Democrats. As I noted back in June:

It should be clear from the above that such un-American moments can be represented by fringe elements in our society (e.g., Anarchists or the German American Bund) or by those actually in the mainstream (e.g.,Federalists in 1798, Democrats in 1860.) The key concept is not how integrated any given group is within the society, or how prevalent its views are, but how the positions of the groups involved deviate from long standing principles such as Free Speech, respect for democratic elections, etc. Of paramount importance in this regard is the inviolability of the principle of adversarial politics, the belief that no political party can claim absolute moral authority to run without legitimate opposition. It is this last principle that is being challenged by the rise of what I call Obamism.

...

This "approach" to politics walks hand-in-hand with the attempts by the left in America's colleges and universities to silence right of center speech, either through the use of "speech codes," which largely seek to protect left of center policies from criticism of any kind, or through the use of what is euphemistically called the "heckler's veto" which in effect uses the threat of violence to silence any and all opposition. In each case the justification is the same. The speech that is infringed is "morally suspect" (they will call anything they do not like "hate speech") and therefore of no great loss when it is silenced.

...

So what I am calling Obamism isn't merely the tactics of this particular presidential campaign; it is the culmination of a long standing process, albeit in a more refined and complete package. This can be seen in the "global warming" debates where any deviance from the left wing orthodoxy is met with shrieks of "denier," a term designed to impugn the character and moral worth of the person it is applied to and nothing more. It can also be seen in the way cultural institutions are being captured by the a "new Left" that believes one of its duties is to banish right of center voices from the conversation.