In case you were thinking I was too hard on Poor Ol' David Brooks today, let's pull back the curtain on the latest chapter in the longest intra-New York Times beat-down in modern history.
Personally I find this faith epistemologically naïve. Clinton seems to have no awareness that many of the programs she endorsed have been tried and did not work. The Obama administration spent mightily on green energy jobs programs and they did not work to significantly increase employment.Mr. Krugman responds, quite unfairly, with facts 'n shit:
*h/t "Unknown"Invisible Green Triumphs...Some things I’ve been reading lately remind me that there’s another major Obama initiative that is the subject of similar delusions: the promotion of green energy. Everyone on the right knows that the stimulus-linked efforts to promote solar and wind were a bust — Solyndra! Solyndra! Benghazi! — and in general they still seem to regard renewables as hippie-dippy stuff that will never go anywhere.So it comes as something of a shock when you look at the actual data, and discover that solar and wind energy consumption has tripled under Obama.True, it started from a low base, but green energy is no longer a marginal factor — and with solar panels experiencing Moore’s Law-type cost declines, we’re looking at a real transformation looking forward.You can argue about how much this transformation owes to federal policy. But only a combination of rigid preconceptions and sheer ignorance can explain the way right-wingers still go around sniggering about Obama’s green-energy promotion. Far from being a bust, that policy was at least a contributing factor to an energy revolution.