Krugman stamps himself into a fit of jealousy over Trump's presidential medal to Tiger Woods

Has Paul Krugman gone off the deep end?

What a fool the Nobel prize–winning economist-turned–New York Times columnist has made of himself with this tweet, sniping at President Trump for presenting Tiger Woods with the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Has Paul Krugman gone off the deep end?

What a fool the Nobel prize–winning economist-turned–New York Times columnist has made of himself with this tweet, sniping at President Trump for presenting Tiger Woods with the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

It was a no-brainer to give the man the award, given that nearly every president since John Kennedy has given the award to some standout athletes — Michael Jordan, et al. — notes Ashe Schow at the Daily Wire.  But somehow, if Trump did it, too, it was proof of Very Bad Judgment in the mind of Krugman.  It was no longer about an athlete, his courage, and his character; it was all about golf balls.

As if it doesn't take much to hit golf balls, unlike, say, do economics.  As if achieving excellence in any field is just a matter of hitting golf balls, and any boob can do it.

It's infuriating because what Trump was honoring was Woods's story.  Rush Limbaugh wrote extraordinarily movingly about what this was really about — courage, character, and comeback.

And we all know it was a moving story, or it wouldn't have gotten the attention it did.  Woods, for years, was a washed up has-been.  He went from number one to number 1,199 in the golf world, almost overnight.  Just read Rush Limbaugh's passionately brilliant synopsis of what this matter was really about.  Ten years ago, Woods messed up his home life through extramarital affairs with trashy women in a move that seemed to sink a previously pristine golf career, raising a cautionary tale about the importance of a successful man having a good woman behind him — and the women he went out with in the wake of his marital dissolution were trashy, too, until, in a sort of humility, he buckled down and found an apparently good, and far less glamorous, wife.  But it didn't stop the odds he was up against, even with that.  In any sport, there's a premium on youth, even golf, so when your time comes, you're likely to be young, and when your time goes, you're going be replaced by more energetic youngsters.  Woods appeared to be a sunk stock that was never going to come back.  And he became a running joke, a punch line, a figure of mockery, given that he had tumbled so hard from such heights.  Yet he kept at it, fighting medical problems on top of his personal problems, probably the hardest of all, the fact that everyone laughed at him, or wondered why he bothered, given that he'd won previous golf championships and had enough money.  Why was he doing this? 

His winning the Masters was one of the greatest comebacks in any sport's history.  As now fallen Lance Armstrong once summed up championship, it's not about the bike.

It's as if all of that is lost on Krugman, and with it, his inability to understand the excellence, and focus, and grit, and persistence it takes to make a champion, something that makes athletics inspiring to people and Woods the perfect example of it.

It's not surprising that a lefty such Krugman would be opposed to Woods getting the medal, given their focus on accepting government handouts and government programs as better than any individual grit or character that made Woods stand out from all other athletes.  "You didn't build that," as President Obama liked to say.  Krugman agrees with this, because he errantly said previous recipients of the medal have done things 'on behalf of the nation and world.'

The crazy thing is: Why would a guy like Krugman, who, once upon a time, won the Nobel prize in economics for his fairly good work on free trade long, long ago, have such contempt for people at the top in other fields?  Krugman's achievement, of course, was long, long ago, and he's never done anything notable since then.  He became a wretched New York Times columnist, famous for his nastiness, and never produced anything of importance again in economics.

Could Krugman's snipe against Wood and belittling of his field of excellence have something to do with his own reality?  Well, draw your own conclusions.