Bernanke Man of the Year. Really?

[Mass]

I never considered Time choices for their men of the Year as worth it (short of a couple more than obvious ones like Obama), but this one makes me perplex. Bernanke? Really?

I agree with yglesias that this choice tells a lot about who we are (or at least who the editorial board of Time magazine is).

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/12/all-hail-bernanke.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+matthewyglesias+(Matthew+Yglesias)&utm_content=Google+Reader

All Hail Bernanke!

Time giving Ben Bernanke it’s Person of the Year honors seems to me to say a lot about where we are as a society.

Bernanke takes office in February of 2006 holding what’s probably the second most-important job in the United States and the most important job for determining overall macroeconomic conditions. He follows basically conventional thinking and doesn’t make any unusual errors. Unfortunately, conventional thinking and normal errors lead into a major financial panic and the worst recession in 70 years. Then during the desperate fall of 2008 Bernanke takes decisive action and helps put a floor on the collapse. By spring 2009 it’s clear that this will be the worst recession since the end of the Great Depression rather than, as some had feared, the second-coming of the Depression. At this point he basically unfurls a “Mission Accomplished” banner, says ten percent unemployment is okay by him, and if congress wants to do anything fiscally it should look at cutting Social Security benefits.

That’s not nothing. That’s not the worst record of any 21st Century public official (I dunno…Robert Mugabe?) or even of any major 21st Century central banker (Jean-Claude Trichet) or any Bush administration appointee (Don Rumsfeld) or anything. But it’s really not all that great. And it demonstrates a very specific class skew—extraordinary intervention into the market place just long enough to fix the situation from the point of view of asset-owners while leaving wage-earners holding the bag. But the owners and managers and editors of Time Magazine and the companies that advertise in it probably don’t care so much about that.

In a lot of respects it strikes me as the most fitting possible choice, an eloquent statement about where America is in 2009.

The article itself, I would note, is pretty good and informative and it’s a reminder of how shockingly rare it is for the popular press to actually explain to people how important the Fed chair is. Meanwhile, a new poll says that by a margin of 47-20 voters think Bernanke puts “wall street” ahead of “main street.” Bloodless wonk that I am, I wouldn’t put it that way, but I think it’s in the spirit of my asset owners versus wage earners point.

[uponit7771]

1. He kept his mouth shut while Bush fucked up the world, why should he get a prize for fixing it?!

...don't understand Times logic here.

It's like giving Bush MotY for fixing Iraq.

[Popular Front]

2. Our President is the true man of the year

We salute him!

[randr]

3. Consider the source

Time/Warner/AOL etal have given Bernanke saintly status with this religiously iconic image.
Didn't one of the Wall Street thieves claim divinity last week?
Apparently the whole crowd has found religion.
I can't wait to see how the freeper crowd responds to the overtly religious symbol especially at Christmas time.

[AndyA]

4. It's not necessarily an honor to be Time's Man of the Year.

Notorious figures from history were given that honor as well. In some cases, where the person does mostly good it could be viewed as an honor, but that's not always the case.

Adolf Hitler, Richard Nixon (twice), Newt Gingrich (the adulterer), even George W. Bush were all so "honored" at one time.

It's not necessarily an honor, depending on the individual. It can also be a scarlet letter hung around their neck. In this instance, I suspect that is the case.

[BeyondGeography]

5. Hideous choice

[themaguffin]

6. so was Hitler.