The Art of the Unsaid, or who speaks for the Inner Economist

Brian Caplan, quoting Scott Sumner, gets into the deception that occurs when economists become op ed writers:

OK, let's have some fun with this golden oldie from 2005:

And the backlash [against neoliberalism] has reached our closest neighbor. Mexico's current president, Vicente Fox, a former Coca-Cola executive, is a firm believer in free markets. But his administration is widely considered a failure.

So what is Krugman saying here? You might think; "Isn't it obvious? He's saying that Fox implemented free market reforms and they failed." If so, you underestimate the subtlety of Mr. Krugman. He didn't say that Fox implemented any free market reforms at all. He said he was a firm believer in free markets. And who could dispute the proposition that mere belief in free markets, if not actually implemented, does not produce economic miracles? How dare you assume he claimed Fox implemented such policies!

...The fact is that Mr. Fox did not implement free market reforms. Why not? Because the Mexican legislature was firmly controlled by the opposition PRI, who had no interest in helping him... Think about it. If you wanted to say economic reforms failed, why not just come out and say it. Why refer to a leader who believed in market reforms, when it takes no more ink to say a leader who implemented market reforms. (OK, 'implemented' is a couple extra letters--'enacted' would do.)

Economists like Krugman have two tasks. Get the average reader to believe in something while passing the theoretical test of the economic peers who read the test.