Let's contrast Chubby-neck Sullivan* with Mickey "With Dems like these..." Kaus. take on Krugman's latest (linked below).
Sullivan's all upset because he thinks Krugman compared Bush to an "anti-Semitic, Holocaust-denying, racist thug." On the other hand Kaus is all upset that because Krugman failed to sympathize with Le Pen voters, as well as the fact that he failed to fully state his case about Ashcroft.
The point Krugman is obviously making, as Sullivan well knows, is that those people who represent Krugman's "angry people" are running the country, not that those representatives are identical to Le Pen. DeLay and Ashcroft are heroes to our angry people . Our angry people don't necessarily want the same things as their angry people. But, hey, it's Planet Andy, where everything goes.
As for Kaus, well, I suppose you can interpret Krugman's statement:
In both cases, what really seems to bother them is the loss of certainty; they want to return to a simpler time, one without that disturbing modern mix of people and ideas. "
in a variety of ways. But, actually I think it is a fair and concise characterization, if not elaborate discussion of, the issues Kaus, himself surrounded by an increasingly disturbing modern mix of people and ideas in Santa Monica, raises in sympathetic solidarity with his National Front comrades.** The word "disturbing" doesn't pass judgment on whether those concerns are legitimate or not. I'm sure Krugman has less sympathy to those concerns than does Kaus, but he didn't necessarily dismiss them entirely.
As for his characterization of Krugman's use of the word "Ashcroft" as a bogeyman, well he's correct but that was the point. DeLay is not as nationally known, plus it was a recent and relevant anecdote, so he required some explanation. Ashcroft's record is understood by your general Times-reading audience. Krugman needed to include more than one example of the loony authoritarian right to illustrate his point. One may disagree with Krugman's assessment of Ashcroft, but it didn't require explanation, not in an 800 word column anyway.
Multiple people, in punditville and blogistan both, have compared the French and American outcomes in different ways. Kaus may disagree with Krugman's assessment, but I'm puzzled by the reaction it inspired.
*Ever since Andy took a swipe at "jiggly-thighed lesbians", I have no qualms about mocking his various physical idiosyncrasies.
**Note, I am not really accusing Kaus of being in solidarity with ""anti-Semitic, Holocaust-denying, racist thug[s]". I was just practicing my new rhetorical trick that Andy taught me [see above]. On the other hand, given Kaus' stand on immigration and his occasional cryptic references to a budding Mexican Separatist movement that is behind every corner in California...
