Expertise Trumps Ideology in Obama’s Early Picks

[babylonsister]

Expertise Trumps Ideology in Obama’s Early Picks
By Adriel Bettelheim, CQ Staff


After he waged a campaign built around a stirring message of change, many of President-elect Obama’s supporters expected him to begin stocking his administration with passionate progressives bristling to challenge the status quo. Conservatives anticipated something akin to the second coming of the New Deal.

Neither scenario has materialized.

At the quarter point in the transition process, Obama has surrounded himself with a cadre of seasoned political operatives and Clinton administration veterans known more for their expertise than ideology. Beltway savvy and centrist policy chops have, so far, trumped partisanship.

Some of this is to be expected, as Obama’s team shifts from the frenetic pace of a presidential campaign to the more deliberate realm of governing.

And remember that as a candidate, Obama portrayed himself as a new breed of politician capable of transcending traditional political fault lines.

more...

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docid=news-000002990448

[RobertDevereaux]

1. May I please have...

just a few PASSIONATE PROGRESSIVES?

[babylonsister]

2. I'll take this...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7917142&mesg_id=7917142

[lapfog_1]

3. I'd settle for simply a set of "pragmatists" who get things right.

Unfortunately, the progressives singing the praises of Obama's picks for his economic team haven't really looked into what these guys believe and what they DID last time they were in power. No, they aren't the ONLY architects of the current economic meltdown, but they sure did help it along. All one has to do is look at their record... or at least the record of the ring leader, Robert Rubin.

Where is a Paul Krugman to counter balance Summers and Geithner. Will Obama be so damn smart that he won't trust them?

They may have already whispered to him that he can't increase taxes (repeal the Bush tax cut) right now because it would "further hurt the economy"... and that's just wrong. More supply side bullshit. In fact, right now is the perfect time to go after the rich bastards money. They sure aren't using it to invest and trickle down to the rest of us. We need to tax it so that the government will be able to spend it without going further into debt faster than with Bush. Get it out of the rich bastards savings account and back into the economy.

[babylonsister]

4. So everyone's wrong on PE Obama's selections. Gee, I think I have

a lot more faith in him than you do. Don't you think every decision he's made has been analyzed?
I like the chorus of positiveness I'm hearing.

[lapfog_1]

8. Try looking up the backgrounds and decisions yourself

and then tell me how much you like these guys.

I'm really tired of the "Obama is smarter than you" argument because it presupposes you know how smart either of us are AND it assumes that intelligence always leads to superior decision making.

I'm pretty smart and I get misled by well intentioned friends all the time. Especially in areas that I'm not familiar with.

Anyway, don't believe me, look it up yourself.

And I haven't been critical of any of his other appointments, just the economic team. Yeah, I'm not a big fan of Hillary at State. But I haven't criticized Obama for picking her (assuming that it still happens).

[babylonsister]

11. The thing is, there's nothing any of us are able to change, so from

my pov, complaining about his selections is fruitless.

And I had no intention of insinuating any such thing about your intelligence. I also realize these people are not perfect, but I don't know of any better candidates who a) know how to work the DC system, and b) who are better qualified than who Obama has already picked. I do have faith that these are the people chosen after narrowing down their list of possibilities. So seems to me this is as good as we're likely to get.

As for Clinton, I hear you. But again, if Obama wants her as SoS, I'm assuming he has valid reasons, so I've been keeping my mouth shut (or trying).

[lapfog_1]

19. Actually, right now is about the ONLY time that our complaints

might be heard. After the picks are solidified and approved by Congress, then we have to hope that a) they have come to understand the error of their ways and are fully onboard with a re-regulatory spirit or b) Obama sees them for what they are, hopefully before we are fully in the Second Great Depression, and he fires their asses.

Right now, we can influence Obama directly and by writing our democratic Senators that will vote on confirmation.

As for Hillary, I'm keeping my mouth shut too.

And if she isn't up to the job or doesn't match with his agenda... I think he will figure that one out all by himself. And likely not too much damage will be done before that (I don't think she will start wars without checking with the boss first).

But the economy thing. It's a crisis right now. No time to see if "free market" experiments work out. We really need bold action. Like immediately raising taxes on those that earn more than $250K a year. We need that money to fund a new government jobs program. Without increasing the amount that we are increasing the national debt. (without going into more debt FASTER). We are going to run a deficit... likely for years yet. But hopefully the world will see that deficit start to decrease. Increased spending and decreased deficit spending mean increased revenues. Gotta come from somewhere. And this isn't even talking about the new spending for health care (I still want it) and the new green energy industry.

Rubin and his guys won't recommend this. Nor any other bold moves. and that's the problem.

[Skwmom]

12. No, they aren't the ONLY architects, but they sure did play a major role in it.

[Zynx]

7. Passion does not equal good governance.

At this point all I want is good governance. I don't want a Democratic response to Bush.

[riqster]

5. We have had enough of theoreticians over the last few decades

Reagan ushered in the era of theory-based government in America, and it has been an abysmal failure, just as it was in the Soviet Union. Pragamatism, what really works in the real world, is what we need right now.

[Zynx]

6. Indeed. Ideology lost in the last two elections in 2006 and 2008.

Democrats offered solutions. Republicans offered notions.

[riqster]

14. Want to have some real fun with a Reep?

Point out that their theoretical 'trickle-down' model failed in real life. And THEN, point out the obvious parallel with Marxism.

Wheeeeee!

[Skwmom]

9. Expertise? Yeah, it took REAL expertise to come up with the policies that are causing this

economic and financial collapse. :rofl


But hey, you have to come up with some reason to keep the smart people out of the room.

If progressives would have been listened to, we wouldn't be in this mess.

[babylonsister]

13. You're confusing the past with the future. Whatever trips your trigger. nt

[Skwmom]

15. If you don't learn from the past, you are doomed to repeat it.

Why in world would you bring back the same people that played a major role in causing this collapse? I've YET to hear one person provide that argument?

[babylonsister]

16. OK. Tell us who is out there with any experience in DC and

the finacial industry who'd be preferable. I'm serious. I know next to nothing about the industry.
From what I've heard, these people are the best and the brightest.
If there are such people, I'm pretty sure they were considered and for whatever reason it was decided they weren't acceptable.
I might be putting too much stock in the vetting process Obama is using. I guess we'll find out.

[blindpig]

10. Just what is wrong with a second coming of the New Deal?

Other than that the rich won't like it?

Looks like what we're going to get is more of the 'free market' same old-same old.

How about some New Deal tax rates or gasp, a wealth tax to get us out of the hole?

Can't offend the major donors, can we?

[Zynx]

18. The New Deal was not sold as "progressive". It was sold as pragmatic.

FDR called it "experimentation".

[blindpig]

20. Who cares how it was sold?

FDR adopted socialists programs because they were pragmatic.He borrowed the minimal amount of social and economic justice from socialism to keep the lid from blowing off capitalism, just as is happening now.

Judging from his own words and his choices of economic advisers we'll not see any of that commie nonsense this time, oh no, it's market based solutions. Calling Obama a socialists was the biggest joke of the campaign. If only that were so.

That's just fine. This time, no half measures.

[theboss]

21. The key to the New Deal was a) government jobs programs and b) the creation of a basic welfare state

In all honesty, this talks of a New New Deal is a little overblown at the moment (though talk to me in 2 years and I might have a different view).

Unemployment is in the mid 6s.

The only major big government program that a) needs to be done and b) could actually be done is universal healthcare.

I mean, do you really expect him to start a new TVA?

[blindpig]

22. I expect nothing of the sort.

I've paid close attention, Obama will do nothing to discomfort the rich and the rest of us better suck it up.

Of course UHC is doable, but Obama will go nowhere near that, his plan sucks out loud.

Watch that unemployment, it's over 8% here and the way layoffs keep coming I expect 10% next quarter.

What then?

[Zodiak]

17. I disagree with the premise of this article.

Centrists in the Democratic party have an ideology....that of free market capitalism, union busting, free trade deals, corporate patronage, and Wall Street bailouts.

Progressives have a different ideology.

The implication that centrists in the Democratic party have no ideology is false...we have been living with their ideology where it intersects the Republicans' ideology for 20 years. It is called the "Washington consensus".