“I’m gonna take back some of the things I said about you, Egon.”

I blogged about this once before, but only to be snarky. Then Walter Russel Mead wrote about it, too (and then I wrote the post right under this one), which reminded me that I’d wanted to say something more.

First, just so you know what we’re talking about, Paul Krugman’s mad at “the elites:”

…it was the bad judgment of the elite, not the greediness of the common man, that caused America’s deficit. And much the same is true of the European crisis.

In case you’re wondering, no. Krugman isn’t finally coming to realize what an asshat he is. In what may be a worldwide first for a Leftist, Krugman is referring to George W. Bush as “elite.”

He writes:

The fact is that what we’re experiencing right now is a top-down disaster. The policies that got us into this mess weren’t responses to public demand. They were, with few exceptions, policies championed by small groups of influential people — in many cases, the same people now lecturing the rest of us on the need to get serious.

Here’s my question: if Krugman is right – and I’m not saying he’s not – then isn’t he making the perfect case for taking power away from those “small groups of influential people?”

Isn’t this a damn fine reason not to rely on the elites? Not to put ourselves in a position in which the elites have undue influence over us?

I know, it’s not the idea of “elites” that bothers Krugman. It’s not the idea of a “ruling class.” It’s that sometimes, the “ruling class” doesn’t follow his prescription. How difficult it must have been for him, watching President Obama sign an extension of those awful Bush tax cuts?

But, that’s the risk you run. Having a King is awesome when you’ve got a good King. But then the good King dies, and his dumbass son takes over. And then…

If only Krugman would put two and two together, then, and see this for what it is: the very reason for diffusion of power, which the Founders tried (but failed) to give us.