SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Identity Problems

POLITICS NOVEMBER 15, 2008

Identity Problems

BY JONATHAN CHAIT

Ever since Election Night, the specter of 1994 has loomed over the Democratic Party. Would the Democrats “overreach”? Would this bright new dawn of liberalism come crashing down as rapidly as the last one had?



The 1993-1994 period took place long enough ago that the feeling it engendered has been forgotten, and the causes of the Democrats’ failure have mostly receded into myth. But the whole experience returned to me with a jolt when I read a Politico story reporting “intense backlash from women’s groups may have pushed former Clinton Treasury Secretary Larry Summers off the short-list to lead Treasury.” Ah, now I remember--that’s what it feels like to watch the Democratic Party self-destruct.



The lesson Democrats have taken from that sour time is that they erred in their “hubris”: moving too far, too fast, especially in their zeal to reform health care. House Majority Whip James Clyburn told The Wall Street Journal that, in the paper’s words, he “advises a pragmatic approach to governance that would begin with items that have proven bipartisan support before tackling ambitious elements such as universal health care.” As Clyburn put it himself, “We moved fast in the 103rd [Congress], and what did it get us?”



Of all Clinton’s missteps, moving too fast on health care was clearly not among them. Clinton actually moved very slowly on health care, failing to take it up until his second year, when his post-inaugural glow had disappeared. The way that the administration--and, even more so, Congress--approached health care was deeply flawed, but the fact that they tried to take it on was not the problem. Health care was and is the gaping hole in the welfare state, a vast sinkhole of national wealth that inconveniences or ruins millions of lives. (Read Jonathan Cohn’s terrific, heart-wrenching book.) Given the importance of the issue and its centrality in Clinton’s platform, they had no choice but to attempt reform.



So what did kill the Democrats? Aside from structural forces--the slow recovery from the 1991 recession, the realignment of the South combined with large-scale Democratic retirements in the South--the primary mistake was to allow social issues to dominate the agenda. The most vividly remembered mistake was Clinton’s walking into a trap on gays in the military. But the pattern stretched through the entire first two years.



Clinton promised to appoint a cabinet that “looked like America.” In practice this manifested itself as an embrace of quotas and set-asides, with interest groups loudly complaining that they had not received their due. The quest to find an Attorney General was a particular embarrassment when it emerged that the position had been reserved for a woman. The appointment of Lani Guinier--who had written in praise of racial proportional representation--was another humiliation, and the squawking of her allies that followed her withdrawal another still.



By the summer of 1994, Clinton had turned to a crime bill, which would reestablish his standing as a cultural moderate. But the bill devolved into a fight over gun control--an issue whose lethality the Democrats had not yet recognized--and “midnight basketball,” which Republicans deftly turned into a racial wedge issue. By Election Day 1994, every conservative social hot button issue had been pressed. Clinton had won the presidency by relating to the economic frustration of the white working- and middle-class. But the first two years of his presidency looked to those voters as the fulfillment of the post-materialist concerns of the 1960s generation.



Which brings us back to Obama, another Democratic president who won office by focusing on the economy and sidestepping the minefields of identity politics. His rumored leading candidate for Treasury, Summers, is opposed by numerous feminist groups and aggrieved former Hillary Clinton supporters. Most of them are too embarrassed to say outright that Summers’ stray musing (which he quickly and abjectly retracted) that differences between male and female brains may play some role in the dearth of women at the very high end of the science field ought to by itself disqualify him from a job making economic policy. One member, Nancy Hopkins, told Politico, “We just want the best Treasury secretary at this moment in time,” but, alas, Summers “couldn’t run Harvard.” How meritocratic!



Of course, even if you buy the notion that Summers couldn’t run Harvard--and I think he was a successful innovator in areas like financial aid for middle-class students and forcing faculty members to concentrate on teaching--there’s something in his background that’s a bit more relevant to his ability to serve as Treasury Secretary than his Harvard tenure: He already was a well-regarded Treasury Secretary.



Another stated concern, according to Politico, is “a sense among some Clinton supporters that picking Summers would reopen wounds from the contentious presidential primaries.” Well, sure, if you’re the one who’s reopening the wounds. Likewise, there’s a sense among some racketeers that a failure to pay protection money could lead to a shop undergoing property damage.



What’s especially egregious about the case against Summers is that there’s probably no more vital appointment Obama can make. Summers is not the only good choice, but he is the most clearly qualified. He commands respect from across the political spectrum--even right-wing loon Lawrence Kudlow had praise for him. Even better, Summers is in accord with liberals on inequality, regulation, and Keynesian fiscal stimulus. If Obama is going to enact the transformative change liberals want, he has no better asset than a former Treasury Secretary who presided over a boom and commands bipartisan respect to sell that change for him.



I’d say that for the vast majority of women and minorities in this country, repairing the economy and the health care system is about a million times more important than the race or gender of the top layer of the Executive Branch. Daily Show correspondent Samantha Bee memorably mocked the notion that feminists would support Sarah Palin because, though she’s Hillary Clinton’s ideological opposite, “she’s her gynecological twin.” Very, very few of Clinton’s supporters were actually tunnel-visioned enough to think this way. But can you blame the McCain campaign for thinking they might be?



To the identity politics left, diversity at the top is not just a bonus but the central point of politics. On Wednesday, U.S. News blogger Bonnie Erbe complained that Obama’s appointments are not sufficiently diverse: “His first cabinet selection, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, is, of course, a white man. I'm not liking what I'm seeing,” she wrote. “Obama owes it to women and women of color, whose votes he secured in historic proportions, to put them in cabinet posts they've not yet held, such as Treasury and Defense.” If Obama’s bid to remake American government dies, that will be the voice of the murderer.



Jonathan Chait is a senior editor of The New Republic.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 29 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

29 comments

Spot on Jonathan. The mere mention of Lani Guanier and Gays in the Military should strike terror in the hearts of any Obama supporter who is serious about change. Any repeat of these early follies by Obama indicating a clear shift to identity based decision making will diminish his political capital faster than you can say "Contract for America". Choosing candidates for critical positions on anything other than their qualifications to do the job proposed would be tragic and costly. Nonsense about Summers comment at harvard should not be a consideration IF he is determined to be the best candidate for Treasury. The same in reverse. HRC is qualified to be the Secretary of State (unless you don't like referring to her as a secretary) for many very legit reasons. I voted Obama (as an ardent independent) not to license him to be a cultural warrior fighting old battles but a leader in very precarious times. If he plays games with the country's welfare he will get what he deserves; lost political currency, a re-vitalized opposition and little real accomplishment. If, on the other hand, he does what I believe he will and balances the necessary political payback with careful appointments (HRC accomplishes much to that end) with selecting the most capable person for the job at this moment, well, then he stands a great chance. He'll need to retain every bit of capital he has today. he has a monstrous job ahead. Cultural warriors back off!!!

- PRR54

November 15, 2008 at 12:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Excellent and straight to the point, Jon. Now, if tnr would only un-sabotage the Comments section we might be able to have a conversation about this while it's still topical. With the current system of lengthy "review" before publishing comments, we may be into the second Obama term before this appears.

- Robert Powell

November 15, 2008 at 2:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wouldn't appointing Larry Summers open a gaping opportunity for the GOP to split off feminists -at least alienate them? First the party dumps Hillary, but survives, and now puts the label on itself that it no longer really cares for feminists but is just using them as a "where else are they going to go" automatic voting bloc. Even a dumb republican - can find a way to exploit that -and then there is that " woman scorned" bit to deal with.

- Don L

November 15, 2008 at 6:01am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wouldn't appointing Larry Summers open a gaping opportunity for the GOP to split off feminists -at least alienate them? First the party dumps Hillary, but survives, and now puts the label on itself that it no longer really cares for feminists but is just using them as a "where else are they going to go" automatic voting bloc. Even a dumb republican - can find a way to exploit that -and then there is that " woman scorned" bit to deal with.

- Don L

November 15, 2008 at 6:01am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Clinton followed a "well-loved" President. That might have helped to disrail any reforms. Obama follows GWB. Yes, we must go for competence instead of politics. I was a Hilary fan, "disappointed" in more ways than one, and the thought of heaving her into the position as Secretary of State for political reasons leaves me cold enough to re-freeze the artic cap. She has her Elder-Stateswoman role to play out in the Senate and she will achieve that honor and reknown. I have been put off by Summers, having heard of the Harvard connection. Could anyone direct me to a link about him that is less than a remembrance of things past? Thanks.

- Ken

November 15, 2008 at 7:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I would make the contra-argument that Obama simply HAS to make “quota” appointments as the Democratic President (particularly with regard to women given his history of his primary campaign), and people like Chait would do the President-Elect a favour by shutting up their whining about the issue. The minority groups are not going to be convinced by academic articles by the likes of Chait in TNR so article like this perform no useful function except to give ammunition to the Republicans who are hoping for a Democratic civil war on appointments like the nascent “Blacks v. Gays “ civil war that the Republicans would like to see break out in California. The problem with Clinton was not so much that he was determined to appoint a woman as Attorney General but that he left that appointment so late that when the first one did not work out he could not appoint a man instead and make it up with a female appointment somewhere else as most of the other senior appointments ha been made. So you were left with the desperate search for a woman (any woman!) that could do the job, the Clinton admins embarrassment shown up by its incompetent pandering. What Obama needs to do is pander COMPETENTLY, not to swear off pandering at all. I agree with Chait’s general point the Obama would do best with the general public to focus on economic issues for his first few months , but the best way to do that is to satisfy the minority groups with his appointments, (which the general public do not really care about, but the base does) and have them in purring mood when he is bringing forward his healthcare plan, rather than having to introduce a compromised healthcare plan with the Sisterhood perhaps already hissing about his cabinet make-up.

- kiltubberr

November 15, 2008 at 7:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

America is a different country than when Bill Clinton took over. We are bleeding manufacturing job we have 47 million people without health insurance and it grows each day, not to mention a financial market on the verge of collapse. Why is it that republicans can move quickly and we are OK with it but when democrats are in office we expect them to take things slow. TO me thats BS maybe Bill Clinton was in a more cautious climate than the one we have now Obama has a mandate from the people they dont expect things to get done overnight but they expect action quickly and in the right direction. Maybe Bill Clinton failed with healthcare because he didnt involve the American people in their DEMOCRACY. Obama wont make that same mistake. But dont try and fool us that he needs to be cautious that to me is BS. If you dont act aggressively and act NOW while you have the AMerican people engaged 4 years from now we probaly still will NOT have healthcare. Carol

- Carol

November 15, 2008 at 8:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I would gladly take the small problems of the Clinton Administration, except 1 and we need not go there. I am not suggesting taking a path to repeat errors, that would be foolish and I will leave that to the Republicans who apparently learned nothing from the selection of Dan Quayle. The GOP has become the party of the middle finger and many of us who consider ourselves Conservative have gone shopping elsewhere. The so called base is now a smaller group of people who now stick their middle finger up at each other, deservedly so. Negative campaigning, faking concern for people, narrow minded politics is the impression that has been created and the election results show that. Will the Democrats use their hands to overreach, hopefully not. Will the Republicans continue to sit back and stick up their middle finger, you can count on that. The good news is the gang who enjoys acting like a lynch mob continues to get smaller and they way things are going their national conventions in the future could be held in some small town in Alaska, a fitting end.

- geek

November 15, 2008 at 9:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

hillary must be given a post in the government, because otherwise its fans will think ( wrongly again )they were betrayed. but not secretary of state, which requires a different brain to manage, and even if hillary is hyperintelligent, hard working, consensual and educated she doesn't have the natural DNA for the job. the rest of the world is not a swing state with blue vs. red collar workers, and only a cultural or racial hybrid with metrosexual, almost self devoid, soft power in obama's mold ( like zakaria, richardson or indra nooyi ) could read and manipulate a third world mind. hillary will take the job as a personal feminine challenge in the best case,or as a guerilla war tool against obama and a step for 2012 race in the worst case. so the solution for her would be something like justice department: it is quite prestigious and now is in a total mess, and from obamaniacs point of view would be a tough, almost compromising place since requires dealing with new rules for trials of terrorists or its suspects, torture, abortion and immigration. she will be most than competent to make a string reform after 8 years of dumb and dumber, and it will be unlikely to be a place for further political personal progress. but no foreign affairs, no way.

- rok

November 15, 2008 at 10:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If Hillary goes to Foggy Bottom, Obama's problems with women go away. Only the radical PUMA's will still be upset about Summers.

-

November 15, 2008 at 10:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Any time you change the status quo those who are enamored with the status quo will say you are over reaching. The real change that needs to occur is explaining polices with facts and integrity. The Republicans have engaged in middle finger politics for a long time. Differences in opinions were not respected even within the Party and anyone who voiced a different view or perspective were branded as not real Americans or flaming liberals. I have suggested that the symbol of the Republican Party be changed to the middle finger as a reminder of what they have done wrong. The coveted base has eroded and embracing Sarah Palin as someone who has energized the base is akin to supporting the lynch mob gang who feed upon their disdain for any opposition. When George Bush first ran he used the phrase compassion conservatives, too bad it was just words. Some mistakes in any change of administration are bound to happen, and as they institute change the criticism of over reaching is bound to be voiced, however I don't think this crop of Democrats will make stupid mistakes.

- Geek

November 15, 2008 at 10:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

bill clinton lost in 1994 not because he went too far to the left or too soon, but because he failed to do what he promised. reagan did what he said and people remember him as a winner. this year election was not a referendum on conservatism, it was simply a punishment because bush failed, not because he overreached. Americans like God hate the weak people who fail and blame others, not the audacious dreamers like David. the best way for obama would be to "peel-off" republicans in the same way he wants to fight talibans in afghanistan: - bribe some with jobs or opium, make deals with centrists from GOP and therefore compromise them in the eyes of conservative base. - pass many laws with the help of the republicans moderates which will make the divide inside the GOP even bigger - bring Palin in Washington as a senator because this will make GOP more ignorant, radical and (yes) funny. - speak about bipartisanship in washington arena but practice partisanship at local levels. and hire the best people from the country. if this will overlap the demographics is irrelevant.

- rok

November 15, 2008 at 11:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There's something about this article that makes me think Mr. Chait must have some skin in the game vis-a-vis the re-elevation of Larry Summers. What's the evidence that Summers or anyone else is the magician who'll rescue the economy? He was lucky once to "preside over a boom" not of his own making; is the country supposed rub him like a charm to make that luck return?

- cartographer

November 15, 2008 at 12:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes, as a Centrist who voted for McCain, I agree with this article. But one thing else. Clinton's health care plan failed in part because he put his wife in charge of it. Hillary is now a Senator from NY of some accomplishment, but back then she was a crooked lawyer from Arkansas. The process she engaged in to create her plan was behind closed doors. I know that Obama has a "plan" but I fear it will punish small businesses. Instead, we need a "911 commission" on healthcare that could embrace the interests of all of the stakeholders (I don't count trial lawyers among these!). Otherwise, Obama's plan is either doomed not to pass or doomed to further damage the economy as well as his presidency.

- flexibledogmatist

November 15, 2008 at 12:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Chait does a nice job of rewriting, deconstructing, history. Lani Guanier didn't "withdraw her nomination," she was asked, told, by the administration to do so. But of course Clinton didn't have the courage to tell her to her face to do so; she learned she wasn't to get the job in the newspapers. Why do we elect, Obama's another one, confrontational adverse (gutless) men to the presidency?

- LoachDriver

November 15, 2008 at 1:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You are right to say that Summers' comments regarding women in science are largely irrelevant to his being qualified for Treasury Secretary. However, where I see a disqualification is in his consistent support and advocacy for deregulation during the Clinton administration specifically his support to repeal Glass-Steagall. There is little doubt that such measures helped create a boom during the nineties but the bust we are now enjoying, as a result of those Clinton-era policies is the worst economic disaster since the Depression. It would be foolish of Obama to invite this man and his credo of self-regulated markets solely in order to engender calm in the markets because he is a market friendly candidate.

- Liam Frost

November 15, 2008 at 1:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You know, I had forgotten all about that stuff with Clinton's identity politics and I was probably supporting some of it back then. I guess it goes to show you that an old feminist can learn new tricks. I want Obama to pick the smartest and best candidates for his cabinet most of all. I am a strong Hillary supporter who wept with joy to see the end of Bush era. I am not going to put any stumbling block before the Obama transition team based on "Identity".

- Helen Liora Major

November 15, 2008 at 1:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Right on Jonathon. Just as an aside - these screetching nit wit feminists are totally embarassing to me as a woman as usual. Don't they realize how much they set their agenda back? Whatever you may think of the man's two sentences five years ago or whatever it was - the man has apologized sincerely many times. What do these idiots want? Him to leap into the ocean and drown himself? Ugh. Save me from these foolish, hateful women.

- WandreyCer

November 15, 2008 at 5:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Right on brother! Of course diversity is good, but the most important thing is qualifications and ability. Identity politics are destructive whether they come from the right or the left. I personally don't care whether Obama had an all white male staff, as long as they were the best for the job. The reality is that this won't ever happen because diversity occurs naturally when fairness and good judgement dictate decisions.

- JDees

November 15, 2008 at 7:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is a pithy summation of the dangers Obama faces. We simply don't have the luxury of indulging in identity politics right now. Besides, that sort of transparent pandering is why lower income whites vote against their economic interests and support Republicans. The multi-cultural left pretty much destroyed the FDR/LBJ coalition. Part of that was necessary due to the civil rights and feminist movements which obviously were justified and morally obligatory. However, assigning racial/gender requirements for cabinet positions is just as reprehensible as Bush appointing a bunch of unqualified cronies. Clinton failed to remake the political map, and perhaps he lacked the opportunity Obama has. But where Clinton hit a bloop double, Obama has a chance to hit a grand slam. Don't blow it Mr. O!

- Dave

November 15, 2008 at 10:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

He should not be disqualified because of the sexist comment. People I know from Harvard report that he acts a great deal like someone with Asberger's syndrome. Whether he has such a condition, being deeply socially inept shouldn't disqualify him from a job like Treasury Secretary. It would I think be a good reason to not make him Secretary of State, but no one is talking about that. What I think Chait is missing is that there are quite a few people who think he was a terrible Treasury Secretary. These people also think that Clinton's record as a good steward of the economy is unearned. Free trade, fiscal conservativism and deregulation are, in my opinion and the opinion of many highly respected economists (Stiglitz, Krugman, Pollin to name a few) does not amount to a good economy policy package. The last item is in large part responsible for the promotion of the tech bubble and now the housing bubble. The second item is wrongly credited with being responsible for the good economic times in the late 90's (there is a theory that keeping interest rates low by preventing the government from borrowing is all by itself a stimulus. This theory is wrongly thought to have been confirmed by the record of the Clinton years. There was lots more going on that caused growth in the economy. Like the tech bubble). The first item is probably good overall for growth numbers across the country, but deeply harmful to the manufacturing sector and results in economic growth that disproportionately favors the already well off. There is a legitimate and substantial case against Summers, on the grounds of his prior record as Treasury Secretary. Whether that played a role in the decision to back off or not I do not know. And it certainly matters for the point Chait wants to make, that this is being perceived as the triumph of identity politics. Whether that is still as much of a problem given demographic changes over the last 16 years is up for debate. But I am seeing too often this claim that he is a good candidate being ruled out only because he said some foolish things once upon a time. There are real questions about how good a job he did the first time around, and these questions aren't being asked by a bunch of hippies. They are being asked by Nobel prize winners and former members of the Clinton administration.

- PTM

November 15, 2008 at 11:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Summers should be rejected because he is a bad economist. He is too close to the financial firms and only represents their interests, which are opposed to the interests of the public. Kudlow's praise says it all about why Summers should not be Treasury Secretary: "...he is a moderate-to-conservative Democrat who would be well received by Wall Street and investors." To see the devastation that Summers & Robert Rubin wrought on the developing countries through the IMF, read Joseph Stiglitz's Globalization and Its Discontents. The developing countries would see a Summers appointment as a kick in the face (particularly after that paper about how they should take toxic waste from the West because a life in their country is worth less). No thanks.

- rh

November 16, 2008 at 2:01am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There should be one and only one criterion for any appointment: competence. Use of any other criterion will result in less competence. In this crisis, we cannot affor less than the best. Would you insist that the brain surgeon for your child be a woman? It is amazing that those who talked so much about "change" really want the same old thing.

- Marvin Sussman

November 16, 2008 at 8:10am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

At this moment, the most important criteria for Secretary of the Treasury are competence and trust of the commercial world. If he is the best person on those points (as he seems to be), Summers is the right choice - regardless of hurting some peoples' feelings. With regard to Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State: I am OK with that. She's careful, aggressive when she needs to be, knows the players, and will be accepted as a person of consequence in her own right (in addition to her immediate role as SoS). I think her selection would be a winner.

- Neal J. King

November 16, 2008 at 9:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think the trick is to be able to say that the economy is more important than social issues without saying that social issues are unimportant.

-

November 16, 2008 at 11:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Do you know who we need for Secretary of Treasury? Goldilocks, Yeah that's right. Someone who will implement just the right amount of regulation on business, REGULATIONS, an impossibility to some conservatives, unless were talking about a personal matter like abortion! And someone who will bite the bullet and push through some higher taxes, for the upper tax bracket. Yeah, raise taxes, that what I said, remember were fight a costly war. Go back in history and you'll find we raised taxes during war time, we did not lower them. Stop believing in this nonsense of cutting taxes primarily for the rich will make the economy soar. Clinton raised taxes on the rich and the economy tanked- NOT

- welldone

November 16, 2008 at 6:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Dude, what a great job you have. You get to be spectacularly, idiotically wrong all the time, with no consequences at all. The notion that Larry Summers is either a. The best choice or b. Somehow the only choice and that the country and world will suffer terribly at the hands of the identity politics PC mob if he is denied this position that we all desperately need him to have... ...is just plain silly. Summers was indeed a "well-regarded" Treasury Secretary AT A TIME WHEN THE BIPARTISAN POLITICAL CLASS WAS FAWNING OVER FINANCIAL DEREGULATION. Summers was a deregulator himself, and praised the new instruments that brought on the current crisis lavishly. At a time when we're trying to rebuild a badly tarnished image in the world, is the best candidate for this job really someone whose views include the idea that we should export our pollution and polluting industries to poor countries, that poverty is the result of people having bad cultures and yes, that women's brains don't work so great for math and science? Summers is an ass, who has tried to rehabilitate himself with a very late move to the left on financial regulation. He's not only not the best candidate for the job, the fact that he's on the shortlist shows that the Washington establishment is just as bankrupt as the leaders of the financial industry.

- jcc2455

November 16, 2008 at 11:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I cannot believe some of the attitudes on display here. One commentator even said that Summers should get the job even if he is "socially inept" because that should not disqualify him for the job! Sorry, but that is just naive. Part of Summers job is to go before Congress and the TV to sell his Presidents policies - to do that he needs to be a competent politician. Now some might believe it unfair to exclude somebody from a cabinet appointment because of personality but for a high-profile cabinet post being able to manage staff and the media IS one of the core competencies, whether chait and his fans here like it or not. Obviously his knowledge of the financial World is vital too, but surely there exists in the whole of the US at least a half-dozen guys who are just as good on the economy without Summers negatives? I find it hard to believe there is not, but that is the line TNR seems to be pushing, for some inexplicable reason.

- kiltubberr

November 17, 2008 at 6:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If the choice is Larry Summers or Sarah Palin, let's go with Summers. If it's between Summers and someone roughly equally qualified with roughly equal politics, let's go with someone who doesn't represent a slap in the face to women. Let's not forget that a big part of Clinton's failure to pass health care reform was that he had badly insulted a liberal "special interest group" -- labor -- with free trade, and that group had little interest in helping him pursue the rest of his legislative agenda. Yes, it's conceivable that Clinton's failure can be explained by his attachment to identity politics, but it's also conceivable that Clinton should have done MORE to flatter certain interest groups, rather than less. Obama's going to need NOW to line up behind his healthcare proposal even though it will be awful on abortion, and it's silly to argue that Obama should insult them just to show that he's the new boss.

- CTMorling

November 17, 2008 at 2:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close