Happy Birthday to Richard Hell, 64.
Still shut down, but we still need good stuff, don't we?
1. Interesting: Brad DeLong rapidly losing confidence in Barack Obama. I'm okay with the Summers trial balloon, and with not fighting after it was shot down; I'm not so okay with the two month delay part of it.
2. Yeah, Russia isn't exactly running the world; Dan Drezner is right about that.
3. I suppose I have to link to Jimmy Kimmel on this one.
4. And the Jews -- Pew has lots of numbers.
Of course, it could be that Summers was not Obama's first choice, but was the bankers' first choice, and the trial balloon was intended to avoid nominating Summers while appearing to appease the bankers. Is Obama capable of that? What's the alternative, he's dumb? It's analogous to Obama's opposition, during the 2008 campaign, to the mandate, only to flip once he was elected. Obama was either real smart or real dumb. I put my money on smart.
ReplyDeleteIs it possible that the Summers leak was put out there not by Obama to test the waters but by someone opposed to Summers who anticipated, or stirred up, opposition to the nomination?
ReplyDeleteSure, but once it was out there, and clearly shot down, Obama should have pulled the plug then instead of waiting another six weeks.
DeleteOr, once it was out there, he could have aggressively backed Summers, and (assuming it was possible) lined up very public support outside of Summers' circle of associates.
There's just no excuse for leaving it out there for two months.
Why? What difference does it make?
DeleteOne of the things I appreciate about this blog is that the author is more than willing to point out when things don't matter at all, unlike most pundits who have to pretend that everything is important so that their opinions are worth listening to. Letting Larry Summers flap in the breeze for six weeks had approximately zero effect on any economic outcome or election, near as I can tell. It may have embarrassed Larry Summers, but so what?
Following TN's point - was Summers 'clearly' shot down? Consider the opposition: one important group was feminists, offended at Summers' suggestion that ladies lack the chops for math and science. Then there were those who thought he was "too rude" to be a good fed chair.
DeleteAll due respect to feminists and those uncomfortable around the rude, what do those perspectives have to do with the particular, monumental, historic challenges facing the next Fed chair? A little, maybe. But not much.
Might Obama have reasonably been hoping to buy time on the understandable assumption that the reasons for disliking Summers, while real, were incidental to the matter at hand?
CSH: incidentalitaly (Firefox is telling me that isn't a word, but we add 6 words to the English language everyday, so suck on that, Webster!) is actually kinda crucial for the feminists and those uncomfortable around the rude.
DeleteThe argument would go: if you collect scalps for those who have expressed what you see as bad viewpoints, then you send a signal that having (or, at least, expressing) such views is not acceptable. This is how social norms get introduced, enforced, or changed.
It's similar to unions going after moderate Dems or the Tea Party fielding Angle and O'Donnell: your threats become more credible if you prove yourself to be insane.
I'm not saying feminists are: in fact, a very rational policy on their part is to go scalp-hunting amongst nominees for positions that really have little impact on policies that directly impact you. Feminists, in this case, might be crazy like a fox.
Of course, pull this trick too many times, and people start ignoring you.
Interesting, Matt. It never would have occurred to me to make a new word by combining "Incidental" and "Italy."
DeleteIt would be especially galling to see Summers picked over a more qualified woman, after those remarks. I say more qualified because Janet Yellen's current job as Vice Chair is closer to the Chair's responsibilities than Summers' jobs at Treasury / NEC.
DeleteThis is probably the least feminist argument ever for Yellen, but I like the fact that when she goes to bed, she goes to bed with George Akerlof.
I always got the sense that the Summers trial balloons were mostly being put out by Summers himself, or at least people close to him, to make his nomination seem inevitable.
ReplyDeleteIn re: Summers - the question of when, and how, to taper is the most important one facing the next Fed chair, and its one on which we all have an opinion, and most of us really have no idea. I mean, the economy is plugging along at reasonable growth rates, suggesting: taper, and let the animal spirits free, but the growth rates are off an atrociously low base, and thus aren't *really* that good. So: don't taper?
ReplyDeleteDue to his association with Summers, DeLong is probably privy to Summers' taper strategy. The rest of us - including the President - aren't. The next Fed Chair would be a vexing decision for any of us; I recall how Obama assumed the Presidency <5 years ago touting the attractive "P to E" ratios prevailing in Jan 2009. He was right, of course, about those PE ratios. But his word choice suggested a fellow who wasn't terribly experienced in these matters.
If the Summers thing is flailing, well, its an exceptionally difficult decision, and certainly Obama has neither the information, nor the experience, to evaluate it in the same way one such as DeLong can.
DeLong:
ReplyDelete"A President is not a powerful person who can do what he likes, but a person under immense pressures who has no moral choice but to do what he must."
WTF does that mean?
The Summers thing seems a bit more complex.
ReplyDelete1) I don't know how much of the trial balloon was the Obama Administration vs. how much of it was Summers backers. I do know that those two groups heavily overlap, but that doesn't mean someone wasn't freelancing.
2) I don't know how much of the delay was "letting Summers twist" vs. gathering information, specifically on how strongly Summers opponents oppose him, how they feel about alternatives, how committed they were, etc. Obama has certainly been willing and able to disregard liberal complaints before.
3) I don't know how much it matters; by most accounts Summers and Yellin will govern substantially similarly, Summers wasn't exactly a pol with a bright career now blemished by Obama, and the Fed Chair isn't really a vote-moving issue. If anything, I wonder if giving the liberals Summers' scalp was actually proper care and feeding of the Obama coalition.
The Summers thing seems a bit more complex.
ReplyDelete1) I don't know how much of the trial balloon was the Obama Administration vs. how much of it was Summers backers. I do know that those two groups heavily overlap, but that doesn't mean someone wasn't freelancing.
2) I don't know how much of the delay was "letting Summers twist" vs. gathering information, specifically on how strongly Summers opponents oppose him, how they feel about alternatives, how committed they were, etc. Obama has certainly been willing and able to disregard liberal complaints before.
3) I don't know how much it matters; by most accounts Summers and Yellin will govern substantially similarly, Summers wasn't exactly a pol with a bright career now blemished by Obama, and the Fed Chair isn't really a vote-moving issue. If anything, I wonder if giving the liberals Summers' scalp was actually proper care and feeding of the Obama coalition.
General response for all those who say it doesn't matter...
ReplyDeleteI do believe presidential reputation matters in general. But there's also two specific things here:
1. If Obama really did want Summers, he went about it all wrong; he should have done something like what DeLong suggests.
2. If he didn't care...then not only did he hurt his general reputation, giving himself a "loss" instead of a "responded to situation and moved on," but, c'mon: it's rough enough getting confirmed for an exec branch nomination, and this was a highly visible advertisement against even being considered for a position.
All in all...it's not by itself a huge deal, but it's not something you want to see.