On debating and Paul Krugman

Krugman’s column in last Monday’s New York Times addressed the president’s ideas for health care reform. Half of the article consisted of Bush-bashing, but the other half was interesting and informative. Krugman criticized and, if he’s right, refuted the president’s arguments in support of the health care plan. I enjoy reading what Krugman has to say, even though he has a bad attitude.

What I can’t figure out is whether to believe what he says. I don’t know much about how this or that proposition will affect health care. I don’t have the economic facts. How do I know that Krugman is presenting all the facts, or that he has the right interpretation?

Then again, how do I know the president has the right idea?

How do I know whether a “troop surge� in Iraq is a good idea? What about immigration reform? How do I – and most Americans – know, if we don’t have the facts?

Of course, not every issue is that difficult. But most people may not understand the complex issues, which require the interpretation of lots of information that only experts or people in government might have.

So what should the millions of 16- and 17-year-olds do? We’ll be voting in our first general election in 2008. When Hillary Clinton, or Rudy Giuliani, or whoever, announces an idea that will solve the country’s immigration problems, whom should we believe? Should we go along with what sounds nice? With what everyone else agrees with? With what we already kinda-sorta agree with? Should we just not think about it?

For people who want to give their vote some thought, the atmosphere of political debate and the nature of the issues don’t help them find easy answers.

The best way for Americans to understand these disputes is actual disputing: The two sides in the issue should get to the bottom of the debate, whether through more articles in newspapers or by sitting down and discussing the problem. But most of the debating I see consists more of dodging than anything else.

I was watching C-Span a few hours ago; members of the House of Representatives stood up one by one and said things like, “We have to send more troops to Iraq, to show troops in Iraq that we still care,� and, “The American people spoke last November: we need to leave Iraq.� I was amazed at the shallowness of their statements.

If we’re deprived of intelligent debate, then all we can do is read the newspaper and watch the news, so that we’re as informed as possible. And we can hope that fewer people will dodge in debates and more will say something with content – similar to Paul Krugman.