It is not new that the legitimacy of the Nobel Prize has always been questioned: Sometimes it happens that the Institution itself acts using unspeakable criteria. In other occasions, it happens that, with their attitudes, the laureates themselves offend those who still believe in these prizes. Among those who exploit their Nobel Prize win in order to act in ways opposite to its inherent principles and values, Joseph Stiglitz takes center stage. It is not that we expect much from this economist, but his attitude regarding Spain confirms what most skeptics think of the character.

 

During his last visit to our country, he took the art of being wrong and of ideological kowtowing to new, unsuspected, and unseemly heights for a Nobel Prize laureate. He attributed Zapatero an economic surplus that should actually be credited to José María Aznar. In fact, if there is something that characterizes Zapatero’s policy, it is his squandering that surplus. Naturally, if Stiglitz ignores that Zapatero’s surplus is inherited, he must surely ignore that our President has in his cabinet one of the architects of Spain’s impoverishment during the 1990s as his Minister of Economy and Finance. This ignorance of Spain’s contemporary economic history, his lack of common sense and intellectual rigor, is a surprising fact about a person whose endeavor is to give advice around the world.

 

Stiglitz not only shows an alarming shallowness regarding the economy. There is more. The Nobel Prize winner states that, “Zapatero is one of the most influential thinkers in the social democratic movement.” A statement of this caliber coming from the author of dozens of books and countless articles about someone who has never written a single line, nor has he uttered a single argument, can only be suspicious flattery or irresponsible frivolity. It is either that Stiglitz has gotten to the point of contempt regarding intellectual cogitation in the name of ideological partisanship or that his intellectual altruism just cracks in the face of the Socialists’  generous patronage. Nevertheless, you cannot deny that this flattery is either cynical or worthy of a good laugh.

 

The same can be said when Stiglitz credits Zapatero with leadership attributes inside the social democratic world. The economist should know that Spanish socialists have never been so detached from the rest of their European brethren – who have opted more for social democracy than for Spanish radicalism. The only attempt to follow the lead of “Red Zapatero” was carried out by Italy’s Left and it turned out to be such a failure that the Italians will require time to recoup. However, these factors have not inhibited Stiglitz to make amazing statements that are inaccurate and false. If he thinks that Zapatero can intellectually lead the social democratic movement, it is his prerogative. Nevertheless, if he really thinks that his assessment is accurate, he should then wonder why the Spanish social democratic intellectuals are leaving in order to join the new party UPyD, and why the only ally Zapatero has is the collectivist Left of Hugo Chávez and Evo Morales.

 

We will not go on. Regarding Zapatero, Stiglitz is putting his prestige on the line: He does not know about Spain’s most recent history, he is just buttering up to the political power in courtier ways and accommodating reality to his own ideological preferences or to the likings of those who smother him with attentions during his visits to Spain. He even fabricates social democratic thinkers who are neither. Does Stiglitz have right to behave in this manner before the political power? Undoubtedly. Just as we all have the right to question this Nobel Prize winner’s rigor and intellectual responsibility. It is legitimate for Mr. Stiglitz to take part in these matters, as much as it is improper and intellectually spurious that a Nobel Prize smudges his image with such intellectual behavior. Because it is serious that he is not aware of the situation; however, it would be more serious if what he really wants were not to be aware.

 

 

©2008 Translated by Miryam Lindberg