I'm frequently critical of Paul Krugman, and I've stated why before. I think that he's basically a better-educated and liberal version of any number of right-wing ideologues who see politics as a constant process of carefully cultivating resentment and bitterness in order to keep their most radical elements coming to the polls. I'm not wild about that model because, well, just look at what it's brought us so far.
I'm also very critical of his idea of how the GOP came to power. His notion that it's due to nothing but race is questionable, to say the least. That explains the South (though the South was conservative long before the GOP started pushing for their support) but it doesn't explain increasing conservatism in other regions of the country, like the Interior West, which has no history of tortured racial politics. It's hard to imagine, for example, that Idaho used to be a liberal hotbed a half-century ago, when they were doing things like electing Frank Church to office. Not so much anymore. And I recall the Republicans winning lots of congressional seats in states like Washington and Illinois in 1994, which are relatively progressive states. All of which is not to say that the GOP's overt appeals to racists were acceptable or nonexistent, or that the Reagan Revolution would have been conceivable without them. But Ross Douthat is right that it's not the complete picture. It does not explain all the interesting phenomena. It's sloppy and it feeds into the notion that all liberals do is label the people who disagree with them as racists, sexists, and so on. It is, definitionally, that very phenomenon.
Still, the man is a world-class economist, and I generally liked his most recent book. I just find it puzzling that he, in particular, would start talking about why Obama's race makes him unelectable. Why, after arguing that racism was solely responsible for the GOP's rise and that waning racism will deliver the country back to the Democrats, doesn't he see the irony in insisting that America is still too racist to elect a Black man? Maybe there's not much of a tension there, but I would have thought that Obama's candidacy might have provided some synchronicity with his own views on the subject. Maybe he doesn't think we're there yet, but I suspect that taking Krugman's arguments seriously here is an insult to his intelligence, especially since Obama stacks up well in the polls against McCain while Clinton does not. And does he really think that there's more of a hangup associated with electing a likable Black man than a brittle White woman, especially when the latter has a gaping honesty problem that seems to spawn new crises every week?
In conclusion, Krugman probably ought to stick to economics. He's not a racist, though.
