Not sure why you object. They are both cheerleaders for their respective teams, heavy on rhetoric, light on facts, willing to bend the truth, primarily preaching to the choir with appeals to emotion (intellectual smugness/moralism in Krugman's case, tribalism/moralism in Becks case).

But I suppose I am being a bit unfair in one respect. Unlike Krugman, Beck is occasionally willing to admit that some of the other teams ideas are not that bad (e.g., gay marriage).