I never read Public Interest or any heavily polarized publication on the left or the right so I can't say for sure.
Hmmm, I wouldn't have put The Public Interest in that category. It was a policy journal, genuinely serious, with some interesting arguments. Kristol started along with, I think, Daniel Bell and Nathan Glazer, to get visibility for their proposals but also to offer a place for others of similar or related views.
I read it fairly seriously during its first several years until it became much too predictable for my tastes. I'm not going to go back and search the issues but I think Krugman is wrong on this point. I think Kristol made room in the journal for supply side arguments; but I don't recall him actually making them.
I recognize the Kristol quote Krugman offers suggests he used them publicly.
But the names I associated with supply side arguments were Laffer, Jude Wanninski, and others.
The wikipedia entry for supply side economics en.wikipedia.org, certainly doesn't place Kristol in a major role either.
I'm going to stick with Karen Holt's notion, at least until something better comes along, that neocons are, at best, only peripherally connected to supply side kinds of arguments. Their concern is with a strong state and strong defense policies. |
