I’m going to do a delayed update on a tweet from 9/11 that sparked a lot of outrage. Before I start, however, let me give you some data from the FBI’s hate crimes database, showing victims of hate crimes by motivation in selected years. ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime 1/
A caveat: the “anti-Islamic” category understates the real total, because there was also a rise in hate crimes based on “national origin/ethnicity,” some of which was surely anti-Arab and anti-groups confused with Arabs, such as Sikhs. But it won't change the basic picture. 2/
I wrote that “there wasn't a mass outbreak of anti-Muslim sentiment and violence.” I didn’t mean that there was no outbreak, but that it wasn’t as severe as one might have expected and feared. Maybe my point would have been clearer if I had provided the data above. 3/
To understand what might have happened, consider what has happened under Trump, with rising hate crimes against individuals without any motivating event 4/
Oh, and the Iraq war wasn't about mass prejudice. It was an elite project that exploited 9/11 and fear of terrorism (even though the ostensible justification was WMD), but I don’t think you can cite it to justify claims that the American people as a whole reacted badly. 6/
And for the record, I stuck my neck way out at the time pointing out that we were being lied into war. 7/
The key thing to understand is that prejudice and hate crimes are a constant part of the American scene — not an excuse, just an observation, but part of the background to interpreting history 8/
Let me give you that bar graph again. The post-9/11 upsurge in hate crimes against Muslims was real and unforgivable, but the horrible truth is that it didn’t loom that large compared with what Blacks face year in and year out. 9/
And it could have been much worse. Imagine what would have happened if someone like Trump had been president. So I stand by my original point: the national response to 9/11 was better than one might have feared. 10/

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Paul Krugman

Paul Krugman Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @paulkrugman

28 Sep
Lots of people making these points, but let me join the chorus. The revelation that Trump paid almost no taxes, while easy to explain, is the least important part of the scandal. 1/
The revelation that Trump has always been a lousy businessman, that he has never shown the ability to do anything well besides self-promotion, is a bigger deal. And we should ask why so many Americans were taken in by such an obvious fraud 2/
But it’s Trump’s huge unpayable debt that’s the real killer. It’s not just a question of who he owes the money to. It’s the incentives: if he loses office, he faces personal ruin. And he won’t even give lip service to the idea of losing peacefully 3/
Read 4 tweets
27 Sep
This was not the October surprise Trump was looking for (I know, it's still September, but almost). Of course, the surprise isn't that he's a phony and a cheat — we knew that — but that The Times managed to get the goods 1/ Image
Lots of speculation about whether it will make a difference; no doubt lots of Trump supporters will just dismiss it. In fact, there's a "when prophecy fails" aspect: to admit the truth about Trump is to admit that you were utterly conned, and many will refuse to accept that 2/
But for what it's worth (which isn't much), I find myself thinking of the "world affairs" discussions at my late father's retirement community; I can just see some of the guys saying "$750? He's a total fraud!" and switching their votes 3/
Read 5 tweets
27 Sep
National polls out today from NYT and WaPo; both very good for Biden. One interesting thing from WaPo (NYT didn't ask this question, as far as I can see) is that Trump has lost the advantage on the economy: candidates tied on who's best 1/ washingtonpost.com/politics/poll-…
He never deserved this advantage in the first place. As I noted the other day, independent analyses suggest a better economy under Biden 2/
And nothing in the historical record suggests that Rs are better than Ds for the economy. Actually the reverse 3/
Read 5 tweets
25 Sep
Moody's Analytics — not a partisan organization — says that the economy will be much stronger if Biden wins than if Trump hangs on. What's interesting, and a bit bittersweet for those of us who remember the last crisis, is why they say this 1/ moodysanalytics.com/-/media/articl…
Basically they say that under Biden government spending will be higher, that this will lead to faster recovery, and that with low interest rates debt won't be a problem. And this seems to be conventional wisdom across much of the spectrum 2/
But the same thing was true in 2010; yet all the Very Serious People were calling for fiscal austerity, saying that it would improve confidence, and warning about the dangers of debt 3/ nytimes.com/2010/07/02/opi…
Read 5 tweets
23 Sep
I wonder how many people are ready for just how bad the next six weeks plus are going to be. This is going to be the most dangerous election since 1860, with substantial odds that America as we know it will be damaged or even destroyed 1/
Trump's campaign strategy is to brazen it out with obvious lies: the virus isn't a threat, we have a vaccine, the economy is booming, violent mobs are roaming the streets of New York. Many people will believe him 2/
Even so, it probably — probably — won't be enough. He's behind in the polls, and the two most cited models give him a 15-23 percent chance of winning 3/


Read 6 tweets
20 Sep
In terms of policy, the immediate impact of the Supreme Court fight is most obvious on the fate of Obamacare. So worth remembering what Rs declared about the ACA: It wouldn't work, it would kill jobs, and it would explode the budget deficit. How did it turn out? 1/
ACA went into full effect in 2014. Uninsured rates (<65) in US and CA, which expanded Medicaid and in general implemented the law as intended 2/ Image
Employment. See the effect of ACA (and also Trump election)? Neither do I 3/ Image
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!