Noam Scheiber has a really, really good piece on Obama's advisors:
And, yet, it's not just the details of Obama's policies that suggest a behavioral approach. In some respects, the sensibility behind the behaviorist critique of economics is one shared by all the Obama wonks, whether they're domestic policy nerds or grizzled foreign policy hands. Despite Obama's reputation for grandiose rhetoric and utopian hope-mongering, the Obamanauts aren't radicals--far from it. They're pragmatists--people who, when an existing paradigm clashes with reality, opt to tweak that paradigm rather than replace it wholesale. As Thaler puts it, "Physics with friction is not as beautiful. But you need it to get rockets off the ground." It might as well be the motto for Obama's entire policy shop.
Sociologically, the Obamanauts have a lot in common with the last gang of Democratic outsiders to make a credible run at the White House. Like Bill Clinton in 1992, Obama's campaign boasts a cadre of credentialed achievers. Intellectually, however, the Obamanauts couldn't be more different. Clinton delighted in surrounding himself with big-think public intellectuals--like economics commentator Robert Reich and political philosopher Bill Galston. You'd be hard-pressed to find a political philosopher in Obama's inner wonk-dom. His is dominated by a group of first-rate economists, beginning with Goolsbee, one of the profession's most respected tax experts. A Harvard economist named Jeff Liebman has been influential in helping Obama think through budget and retirement issues; another, David Cutler, helped shape his views on health care. Goolsbee, in particular, is an almost unprecedented figure in Democratic politics: an academic economist with a top campaign position and the candidate's ear.
One major reason for these differences is the candidate himself. Cutler told me Obama is adamant about consulting bona fide experts. "The staff kept saying, 'What he wants to know is that he's really talking to experts in the field. When you go see him, you know, make it clear that you're an expert.'" When it comes to economics, it's very difficult to achieve expertise without an academic background. It's a field that prizes rigorous results, supported by reams of painstakingly sifted data. (Though Reich was labor secretary, he was trained as a lawyer, not an economist.) Cutler, for example, has made his name with a series of detailed econometric studies suggesting that, contrary to the conventional wisdom on the left, Americans actually have quite a bit to show for the trillions they spend on health care.
Given the New Republic's focus, it's not surprising that this is a compare-and-contrast of Democrats. The differences between Obama's team and McCain are also stark, but in a different way: his advisors are more technocrat than Ideologue.
If Obama's team has a fault, it is that they spend far too much time saying "Don't listen to him--listen to us!"
To paraphrase:
"Watch what we say, not what the candidate has done."
So a week or so ago, I was introducing a guest speaker to my class and mentioned that she and I both think highly of Obama's economic adviser. And the name of said adviser promptly left my brain by whatever the shortest route is. Fortunately, the guest speaker is not similarly afflicted and very nicely bailed me out with Goolsbee's moniker.
Thank you, Ma'am.
That kinda creeps me out. It sounds like the sort of naked Appeal to Authority that makes people believe the guys wearing lab coats in TV advertisements. "Oh, you're the leading tax expert in the nation? Good, I don't have to try to understand the economics; I'll just ask 'more tax good, or more tax bad?' and do whatever you say."
That said, I fear that in truly complex policy questions of economics or science, the politician is never going to really understand the deep knowledge of the field (nor would I, for that matter) and a little knowledge of a complex field is often worse than none. Maybe blindly following the advice of "the leading experts" is actually better policy than convincing yourself that they've taught you their field well enough for you to disregard their conclusions...
The real problem comes when you need to reconcile the recommendations of the economist guy against the ecologist guy and then turn the messy result into something you can implement politically.
I'm afraid of this line of thinking for 2 main reasons. Firstly, it seems like so much windowdressing that will get tossed over the side in terms of staffing the administration, which is the real battle. Secondly, I worry about Goolsbee (and others) pulling a Krugman and ignoring all that the know and have ever written due to blind raging partisanship.
The people who have the most impact on any organization are the young high-achieving staffers with aide roles. They do the detail drudgery, draft the laws and regulations, and despite low status and recognition have the greatest impact. They also are at their most idealistic and partisan, veering the furthest from the mainstream, since low-level DC is all about delayed gratification and the psychological benefits of "having an impact" or "making a difference".
Give this view, Obama's people scare me more than Clinton's. They're all "change" agents and much less mercenary than the Clinton camp. The people that the people who Obama nominates will hire are going to be much more passionate and extreme than Clinton's. Leftist passion amongst young staffers will be deadly to the US in terms of economics, regulation, and security. The most recent comparable would have been a McGovern Presidency back in the day, where the Whitehouse would have been fully staffed by the VC. FDR's cabinet and Whitehouse full of Soviet agents is the only worse actual staffing situation.
Hey: So if I understand your comment above correctly, you prefer the more "mercenary" Clinton advisers to the more "passionate" Obama camp. In other words, you choose to go down the road of the same old Democratic policies and politics. I for one am glad that the country is choosing the new path...and none too soon.
The gamble you chaps are going to take on the exotic Obama is rather like the gamble the British took on the exotic Disraeli. That worked out well. I hope yours does.
Which points to the differences between Obama and Bush, despite Clinton's claims in yesterday's GWY speech:
From today's Head of State:
headofstate.blogspot.com
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Clinton Compares Obama To Bush
From today's WP:
"We've seen the tragic result of having a president who had neither the experience nor the wisdom to manage our foreign policy and safeguard our national security," Clinton told students at George Washington University. "We cannot let that happen again. America has already taken
that chance one time too many."
Obama, of course, is not Bush.
Whereas Bush is intellectually incurious, and views intellect and complexity with fear, masked by a reflexive and reductionistic contempt, Obama is intellectually curious, seeks out and embraces ideas, and is interested in their utility, rather than their conforming to a narrow and predetermined plan, and will bring this intellectual strength and ability to his policies.
Whereas Bush is inflexible to the point of parody--and tragedy--making a virtue of failing to reexamine assumptions even when it is clear they are not working-- because cognitive rigidity is, for him, equated with strength, as opposed to the "weakness" of making distinctions--Obama has both firm convictions and the ability to advance and adapt those beliefs to changing circumstances. He has the ability to adapt on the basis of effectiveness and utility, rather than to react impulsively, to stand stubbornly still without any substantive basis, or to fail to adapt, based on fear.
Whereas Bush begins from a point of defensiveness, viewing much of the world in terms of those who need to be taken down a peg from their know-it-all-stance-- the hallmark of a life of earlier resentments, imposed on the world of foreign policy--Obama operates from a position of engagement with people and with ideas. He wants to know; is capable of objective evaluation, and seeks to bring new voices into his dialogue, rather than deflecting them.
Whereas Bush has used advisers as a circle of wagons and a complexity filter, keeping criticism, real-world intricacies, and cognitive dissonance to a minimum, Obama appears to welcome advice, using advisers
as a resources rather than as a shield.
And, whereas Bush connects with the resentments of the angry everyday man, who feels unfairly downtrodden by those that, in their intellectual and emotional confidence and passion, remind them of their own flaws and fears, and who resents those who might receive help, when they feel they have received none, is unlike Obama--who connects with the willingness to aspire rather than to the fear of it; to the hope of devoting the best of
oneself to a community and nation rather than self-protectively dividing it; and to the desire to replace the primacy of tactics and cronyism in favor of shared principle and truth.
Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/02/clinton-compares-obama-to-bush.html
I'm glad you brought this up. To paraphrase the Wizard of Oz, I was beginning to 'pay attention to the man behind that screeen.' For a guy craving to listen to nuanced, thoughtful, economic academicians, he sure seems to be having a good go at repudiating NAFTA in Ohio.
Instead of focusing solely on the advisers, I'd try to find out more about Obama's version of Karl Rove: David Axelrod.
His selection of Samantha Power as a foreign policy advisor is worrisome. I hope that he ignores her as he is currently ignoring his economics advisors...
Whereas Bush is so weak and craven that he spends eight hours a night shut off in a dark room hiding from reality, Obama does not need to "sleep", he spends his nights creating hope and peace out of recycled tires and smog. He then flies his magical sled about the country distributing this hope and peace, while cheering and inspiring those in orphanages and old age homes with his God-like trombone playing.
(( His selection of Samantha Power as a foreign policy advisor is worrisome. I hope that he ignores her as he is currently ignoring his economics advisors... ))
Odd, rather than worrisome, I find it reassuring.