It seems hardly a day passes any more without some icon of the Far Left publically experiencing a mental breakdown of some kind. Many were probably well on the way to neurosis already, but the recent Trump victory triggered their latent problems.
Paul Krugman, an economics professor at City University of New York, Nobel Prize recipient, and contributor to the New York Times, is the latest victim of this syndrome. Krugman is not only not reconciled to the 2016 Election, he's having flashbacks to the 2000 Election. Hence he wrote on Twitter yesterday that,
"There was rightly a cloud of illegitimacy over Bush dispelled wrongly by 9/11. Presents some interesting incentives for Trump."
Apparently Krugman is warning that Trump will stage a terrorist attack as Left-Wing conspiracy theorists claim that Bush did; as well as implying that Trump's election was illegitimate, as these same conspiracy theorists say of Bush's:
"At some point Trump will surely use the patriotism card to distract from the tainted election and his anti-populist policies."
Unlike the Democrats, of course, who have been claiming that Trump stole the election with collusion from the Russians, and that all good Americans really sided with Clinton. Because the Democratic Primary election wasn't the least bit tainted---other than top officials being forced to resign over cheating and a suspected whistleblower being murdered. Krugman is an admitted believer in the conspiracy theory that the Russian Government somehow orchestrated Trump's win.
Krugman incidentally is paid $225,000 a year to teach this kind of nonsense at CUNY. A recognized 'expert' on income inequality, Krugman has an estimated net worth of $2.5 million.
Nonetheless, this champion of the economically deprived managed to pull his faculties together enough to write a brief but utterly senseless op-ed in the New York Times today. Forgetting that the Russians are supposed to have hacked the voting machines, Krugman wonders why Clinton promises of welfare failed to materialize votes among the working poor against Trump's promises of creating well-paying jobs. His answer concludes that "it has to be about culture and, as always, race."
Now to draw Krugman's argument to its logical conclusions: he is suggesting that racial minorities prefer welfare to work. This kind of patronizing hypocrisy is why prominent Black community leaders like Louis Farrakhan urged Black and Moslem voters not to support Clinton. Krugman though is too severely blinded by anti-Trump hysteria to see the absurdities and contradictions in what he writes: and he is succeeding only in making a fool of himself.