In his blog post today, Paul Krugman (in tandem with a nearby editorial from his employer, the New York Times) attacks Rand Paul, calling him a racist because he ran as a Republican and does not endorse all facets of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. However, at the end of his post, Krugman declares himself to be a “Lincoln man.” In response, I wrote this in the comments section of his blog (which I doubt will be approved):
6:15 am on May 22, 2010 Email Bill Anderson
Well, this is interesting. Lincoln was a racist and his home state of Illinois did not permit free blacks to live within its borders. Furthermore, with Lincoln’s permission and encouragement, federal armies burned down entire cities and villages, committed war crimes, and raped women.
Thus, if I am to follow Krugman’s chain of logic in this post, then we need to continue that logical progression to Krugman’s statement about Lincoln. If Krugman is a “Lincoln man,” just as Rand Paul is a Republican, then Krugman has to be a racist, a promoter of war crimes, and a promoter of rape.
Now, if Krugman should object to such a characteristic, then I cannot see how he is free to smear Rand Paul with the “racist” tar brush. Of course, maybe they teach a different form of logic at Princeton University.