That's not actually what he says however. He's merely saying that compassion is a lot more meritorious when it goes to people that one can't directly relate to.
Krugman portrays Portman in this short piece as someone who only judges as "good" whatever is to his own family's "benefit." So, even with this change of heart, Portman is not praiseworthy because his benevolence doesn't extend to people whose self-interests don't overlap with his own. But is that the only plausible way to view the matter? It strikes me as a very baseline ad hominem characterization that is adopted sheerly for the purpose of making a political rim shot. Isn't it possible that Portman's developing appreciation of what his son was confronting and his desire for his son's happiness changed Portman's conception of what the good is in this case? It enabled Portman to then deduce what was in the best interests of gay citizens that he doesn't know, since he now thinks that all gay citizens should gain access to the right to marry, not only his own kid. It's just a fact of human moral psychology, and not a sign of irredeemable wretchedness, that people's experience of what is moral often starts with what is close at hand rather than resulting from principled and detached abstraction. Krugman, in attributing the worst of intentions to political opponents and even finding ways to continually denounce those who have come around to his side on an issue, is doing little more than celebrating his own sanctimony. Why can't he just be thankful that people can change their minds and are coming around the to right decisions and drop the sham puritanism about how they got there?
You still get it wrong. This (the bolded part) is
exactly what Krugman is saying. He just adds that it would be nice if the generally heartless Republicans managed to develop the same empathy for people to which they have no direct connection. And please don't say it's rare or difficult. Any decent person can do that.
