Last month, I linked to a column by NYT's David Brooks, in which he heaped approval on certain conservative groups. His praise was particularly effusive for The American Conservative:
The American Conservative has become one of the more dynamic spots on the political Web.Well, ho, ho, ho, Brooks sure knows how to spot big government, interventionist "conservatives." The mag is running a Bruce Bartlett article which contains these gems:
After careful research..., I came to the annoying conclusion that Keynes had been 100 percent right in the 1930s. Previously, I had thought the opposite. But facts were facts and there was no denying my conclusion. It didn’t affect the argument in my book, which was only about the rise and fall of ideas. The fact that Keynesian ideas were correct as well as popular simply made my thesis stronger...On the plus side, I think I had a very clear understanding of the economic crisis from day one. I even wrote another op-ed for the New York Times in December 2008 advocating a Keynesian cure that holds up very well in light of history. Annoyingly, however, I found myself joined at the hip to Paul Krugman, whose analysis was identical to my own. I had previously viewed Krugman as an intellectual enemy and attacked him rather colorfully in an old column that he still remembers.
For the record, no one has been more correct in his analysis and prescriptions for the economy’s problems than Paul Krugman. The blind hatred for him on the right simply pushed me further away from my old allies and comrades.
As I have pointed out before Bartlett is a gold hater, who favors tax increases and Keynesian spending programs. Absolutely amazing to see his stuff being run in a "conservative" mag. Bartlett isn't on the right side of any important issue. In this sense, he is worse than Krugman. If AmCon is going in this direction, they should alternate and run Bartlett one issue and Krugman the next, for consistency' s sake.