Paul Krugman sees our current political/economic predicamentcurrent political/economic predicament as a battle of alternative moralities. In Krugman's world, there are good guys and bad guys; your policy prescriptions are driven by who you label good and bad. What I see is a lot of confusion. People are confused about alternative economic policies and their effects, and some of the people who are making decisions about those policies, or advocating for them, deliberately sow that confusion.
Here's an example. I'm running for political office, and I offer you a free lunch. The free lunch is that I am going to cut your taxes. I don't mention the fact that this means that you, or somebody else, is going to have to give up something. Maybe I make some vague promises about cutting spending, and make it sound like this spending will cost you nothing. Maybe I make you believe that it will be some set of nameless poor people who will bear the brunt. You don't fancy yourself a poor person, so this looks great. Maybe you don't even understand the connection between government spending and taxes, or the idea that a government deficit represents deferred taxation. Certainly I'm not going to help you understand that. Maybe you don't understand that it's not even feasible to balance the federal budget by reducing services to poor people, or that the places to look for waste in the federal government are in the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security.
Here's another example. Suppose that I am convinced the government needs to be larger. I think the government should provide more goods and services, and I would like the rich to be poorer and the poor richer. This is a going to be a tough sell, as it's clear I have to make someone worse off, and we can't create goods and services out of thin air. But maybe I can market this as a free lunch. Vast numbers of college graduates have been educated in the free lunch of Keynesian economics. This is great. I can easily argue that we are currently in very dire straits, and that Keynes justified an expansion of government in such circumstances. I may or may not actually believe this, but so what? I can harness the wide belief in Keynesian economics to get where I want.
You know who is peddling each of these ideas. I don't think either approach enlightens anyone about the effects of government fiscal policies, or the tradeoffs we face.