Under the headline "Privilege, Pathology and Power," Times columnist Paul Krugman writes:
it's obvious, even if we don't have statistical confirmation, that extreme wealth can do extreme spiritual damage. Take someone whose personality might have been merely disagreeable under normal circumstances, and give him the kind of wealth that lets him surround himself with sycophants and usually get whatever he wants. It's not hard to see how he could become almost pathologically self-regarding and unconcerned with others.
Who are the people that Professor Krugman presumes to assess as not merely spiritually damaged, but extremely so? Professor Krugman briefly mentions Donald Trump, then quickly advances to his real targets, Sheldon Adelson and Paul Singer. Professor Krugman warns of a "march toward oligarchy," which he describes as... well, here it is:
Oligarchy, rule by the few, also tends to become rule by the monstrously self-centered. Narcisstocracy? Jerkigarchy? Anyway, it's an ugly spectacle, and it's probably going to get even uglier over the course of the year ahead.
What's really ugly is Professor Krugman's name-calling. "Jerkigarchy?" "Pathology"? "Extreme spiritual damage"? If Professor Krugman differs with Messrs. Adelson or Singer on tax or monetary or foreign policy, let him discuss the substance. Instead, he prefers to hurl insults. Who is the "jerk" here, really? Who is the pathological one? Since Professor Krugman is so comfortable issuing armchair psychological assessments, is it possible that he is projecting?
Anyway, the notion that America is an oligarchy run by Mr. Adelson, Mr. Singer, or any other right-of-center billionaire is laughable. They opposed the Iran nuclear deal. It happened anyway. Same with ObamaCare. Same with tax increases. They backed Republican presidential candidates like Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and Rudolph Giuliani; instead America elected Barack Obama. When left-wing billionaires like Warren Buffett or George Soros weigh in on public policy in directions with which Professor Krugman agrees, one hears not a peep of protest from the professor about their pathologies. It is pathetic.
At least Professor Krugman and the Times opinion section did not illustrate the article with aerial photographs of the residences of Messrs. Adelson or Singer, or with photographs of them and their family members. Professor Krugman and the opinion section apparently are leaving it to the "news" section and the front page to sink to that level of nastiness when it comes to the treatment of billionaires with right-of-center political views.