Mr. Rodrik (I disagree with him, so I guess I’m supposed to omit his honorific) makes his proposal with the kind of “certainty” you can only have if, after stripping Werner Heisenberg of his honors, you also strip quantum physics of his theories. Natural scientists have accepted that they will never be as sure about even one thing as social scientists are about everything, so I’m sure that Rodrik has Newmanesque confidence in the precision of his moral assessment of hundreds or thousands of public employees.



I do wonder, though, where Rodrik will draw the line. Suppose that in obeying the odious orders of the Commander in Chief a soldier – and let’s clothe this in crimson – a differently sighted, Afro-American, transsexual Muslim soldier, from a blue state, in Guatemala – commits an act of heroism. Maybe it’s not h’s fault. People were shooting at h, and h was startled, and shot back, and being unable to see what the H h was shooting at, h was hurtful to some innocent jihadists by damaging their rocket grenade launcher, and so through no fault of h’s own, h’s platoon survived. But now a community college wants to honor h as an inspiration to its numerous students of similar background. Does that college have Mr. Rodrik’s permission to do so?



Some will say my example is exaggerated, and some will be right. But the line has to be drawn somewhere. Here’s a humble proposal. Why not let each institution decide borderline cases one at a time, by merit? Working for Trump is of course a serious crime, much like heresy, usury and adultery, but murder is a fairly serious matter as well, and in many jurisdictions each murder suspect has the right to be found guilty in his or her own trial.



Rodrik has it 90% right. He would not censor. He would only censure, and censure in the breach, by withholding honors. And if he allows censure on a case-by-case basis following an unbiased (by academic standards) consideration of a public servant’s means, motives and deeds, then I’ll give him another 9%. But as a person interested in economics, Rodrik should know that 1% compounded year after year can make all the difference. That we will soon veer off the tracks by declaring whole segments of society to be public enemies should be kristal clear to him. In fact, Rodrik’s template stands before him.



I was pleased to vote for Obama twice, and I voted for Mrs. Clinton. My roots are conservative, but I am embarrassed for my infra-red hometown by its conservatives’ enthusiasm for the predominantly simplistic, even fraudulent, planks in Trump’s policy. Yet I find something equally disturbing in the liberal reaction in my ultra-blue coastal metropolis. A reporter who cries while reporting the crash of a dirigible has my sympathy. But a reporter who cries on the air at the outcome of an election lacks my confidence. I’m ready to root for Bonnie and Clyde. I know they’re crooks and they’ve done real harm, but the cops’ response is egregious and unprofessional. The other day I heard a renowned professor (normally a nice man) unhinge himself even more dramatically than Mr. Rodrik has done. If this professor truly believes his own words, then by failing to persuade some impressionable audience member to take matters literally into his own hand, he is risking the lives of billions. Hyperbole may be soothing, but is it useful?



During Trump’s rise in the primaries I had a dream. I was in grade school again and my score on an IQ test had just placed me in the third quartile of the population. I have not forgotten the hopelessness that subsided only as I assured myself it was just a dream. The conventional wisdom is that simple folks should be glad they have smart folks to do all the inventing and managing, for which valuable activities they will be paid a little (or - shhhh! - a lot) more. But should simple folks really accept this arrangement? Remember, smart people, you owe your intelligence to the dumb. If they ever rise up and get rid of your smug mugs, then they will be the new smart people. Some speculate that Cro Magnon Man did exactly that to the Neanderthals. Another well-known economics pundit recently crossed species lines to make an ethical point. Taking that precedent: Most of us are smarter than chickens. But how beneficial is our intelligence for chickens, really? Mr. Rodrik should consider the language he uses to denigrate the choices of the Deplorables, even if he knows with certainty their choices are indeed deplorable. Will Mr. Rodrik begrudge them some respect, or simply retort "What, me worry?" (Yes, THAT Newman.)