Objective reality vs. subjective views

Paul Krugman, a Nobel prize winner, engages in a silly game of tying economic ideas to political ideologies:
"First things first: The attempt to create a common European currency was one of those ideas that cut across the usual ideological lines. It was cheered on by American right-wingers, who saw it as the next best thing to a revived gold standard, and by Britain’s left, which saw it as a big step toward a social-democratic Europe. But it was opposed by British conservatives, who also saw it as a step toward a social-democratic Europe. And it was questioned by American liberals, who worried — rightly, I’d say (but then I would, wouldn’t I?) — about what would happen if countries couldn’t use monetary and fiscal policy to fight recessions."

One may argue whether Economics is a science or not - it is certainly not a science in the same ways as physicists and mathematics are, but the argument will essentially boil down to what you define as a science, and how you call a field of knowledge which, although falling short of the precision provided by physics/math, is nevertheless capable of logical analysis and predictions in the areas where the "sciences" are powerless.

Yet, anything with a claim for being a kind of knowledge should be objective - which is independent on the subjective (conservative or progressive) views of the person presented with such knowledge. Otherwise, it would not worth a Nobel prize.