Dueling profiles

Posted By Daniel W. Drezner Monday, March 30, 2009 - 1:48 PM

Newsweek has two long profiles this week -- one on Tim Geithner, and one on Paul Krugman.

The Krugman profile was more interesting, because Evan Thomas managed to encapsulate my own feelings whenever I read Krugman these days:

If you are of the establishment persuasion (and I am), reading Krugman makes you uneasy. You hope he's wrong, and you sense he's being a little harsh (especially about Geithner), but you have a creeping feeling that he knows something that others cannot, or will not, see. By definition, establishments believe in propping up the existing order. Members of the ruling class have a vested interest in keeping things pretty much the way they are. Safeguarding the status quo, protecting traditional institutions, can be healthy and useful, stabilizing and reassuring. But sometimes, beneath the pleasant murmur and tinkle of cocktails, the old guard cannot hear the sound of ice cracking. The in crowd of any age can be deceived by self-confidence, as Liaquat Ahamed has shown in "Lords of Finance," his new book about the folly of central bankers before the Great Depression, and David Halberstam revealed in his Vietnam War classic, "The Best and the Brightest." Krugman may be exaggerating the decay of the financial system or the devotion of Obama's team to preserving it. But what if he's right, or part right? What if President Obama is squandering his only chance to step in and nationalize—well, maybe not nationalize, that loaded word—but restructure the banks before they collapse altogether?

The fundamental question is whether Krugman is a brilliant hedgehog, an insecure pain in the ass, or -- as frequently is the case -- both at the same time.

The rest of Thomas' essay does suggest a little pique on Krugman's part:

Obama aides have invited commentators of all persuasions to the White House for some off-the-record stroking; in February, after Krugman's fellow Times op-ed columnist David Brooks wrote a critical column accusing Obama of overreaching, Brooks, a moderate Republican, was cajoled by three different aides and by the president himself, who just happened to drop by. But, says Krugman, "the White House has done very little by way of serious outreach. I've never met Obama. He pronounced my name wrong"—when, at a press conference, the president, with a slight note of irritation in his voice, invited Krugman (pronounced with an "oo," not an "uh" sound) to offer a better plan for fixing the banking system.

This kind of lament suggests that Krugman is less the lonely voice of reason and more someone who wishes he was on the inside looking out. And yet, what if he's right?

The Geithner essay, by Michael Hirsch, suggests that that the Treasury Secretary is finally hitting his stride. One would ordinarily dismiss this as a standard magazine puff piece, but Hirsch isn't really known for writing those. It's worth reading, side by side, with our own David Rothkopf's ~~jeremiad against~~ mild tweaking of Geithner in yesterday's Washington Post ("he looks like Harry Potter").

COMMENTS (7)

EXPLORE:ECONOMICS, GEITHNER, MOOSEHEADS, PUBLIC INTELLECTUALS, PUNDITRY

Spring break in Brussels, dude!

Posted By Daniel W. Drezner Thursday, March 19, 2009 - 3:26 PM

The Fletcher School is on spring break this week, so your humble blogger is off to Brussels later today to ~~gorge on chocolate and beer~~ attend the 2009 Brussels Forum. I will hopefully resist the forces of conventional wisdom -- which I think I accomplished at last year's event.

As you faithful servant, I intend to observe and report on everything. In fact, you should think of me as the mall cop of the Brussels Forum -- which is a big step up from blogger.

If, for some reason, you do not trust my reportage, you can always watch it yourself. Except for the late-night drinking sessions, of course.

Look through the agenda, and if there's a pointed question you would like me to ask, post it in the comments.

COMMENTS (0)

EXPLORE:INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, BRUSSELS FORUM, MOOSEHEADS, TRANSATLANTIC PARTNERSHIP

The virtues of Commerce

Posted By Daniel W. Drezner Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 9:10 AM

Props to my colleague David Rothkopf for this concise description of the Department of Commerce:

The Commerce Department is a bureaucratic hodge-podge held together by those old Washington stand-bys of inertia, habit, and the self-interests of Congressional appropriators. Oh, and neglect. And ignorance. Not only do most Americans not know what the Commerce Department does -- its various missions are so diffuse most people who work there don't know all that it does.

David is being modest, however. As near as I can figure, the Commerce Department does perform one task exceptionally well -- it allow people to step up from foreign policy middleweights to heavyweights.

Prior to being at Commerce, these people are working in the think tank trenches struggling to get their op-eds placed in the Washington Post. After being at Commerce, these people are jetting to Davos, writing august tomes for Knopf, pulling down medium five figures for speeches, popping up on Sunday morning talk shows, and becoming Deans at the Yale School of Management.

Not that I'm bitter about this or anything.

COMMENTS (2)

EXPLORE:ECONOMICS, COMMERCE DEPARTMENT, FOREIGN POLICY COMMUNITY, MOOSEHEADS, PUNDITS

What are Zbigniew Brzezinski's priorities?

Posted By Daniel W. Drezner Wednesday, January 14, 2009 - 3:39 PM

Zbigniew Brzezinski scares me. He's a really smart guy, possesses loads of policy experience, is a distinguished academic, and when he tangles with people who do not know that much, the results are not pretty.

Nevertheless, I'm going to screw up my courage and suggest that Brzezinski's op-ed in today's Financial Times about the Sino-American relationship is.. how to put it... misguided.

Here's how he prioritizes the dimensions of the relationship:

China is needed as a direct participant in the dialogue with Iran, for China will also be affected if the effort to negotiate ends in failure. US-China consultations regarding India and Pakistan can perhaps lead to more effective even if informal mediation, for a conflict between the two would be a regional calamity. China should become actively involved in helping to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which increasingly poses the risk of a radicalised and unstable Middle East.
We need to develop a shared view on how to cope with the global risks posed by climate change. We should explore the possibility of creating a larger standby UN peacekeeping force for deployment in failed states. We should discuss how an international initiative towards a global adoption of the zero-nuclear weapons option might be helpful in stemming wider nuclear weapons proliferation. We certainly need to collaborate closely in expanding the current Group of Eight leading industrial nations to a G14 or G16, in order to widen the global circle of decision-makers and to develop a more inclusive response to the economic crisis.
But to promote all that we need an informal G2.

Here's the thing: while Iran, Israel/Palestine, peacekeeping, etc. are all important topics, the bilateral economic relationship should be the top issue on the agenda. It should also be second (exchange rate policy), third (fiscal policy), fourth (trade policy) and fifth (regulatory coordination) on the agenda, by the way.

So it would have been nice if Brzezinski had said, well, anything about the Strategic Economic Dialogue, for example. Especially since that is the likely launching point for any comprehensive G2 dialogue.

I confess that this is a topic that makes me cranky. Brzezinski has stumbled onto small bugaboo I have with those who write about geopollitics on a regular basis -- economics always comes last. Particularly during crisis times like the current moment, the economics need to go first.

And second, third, fourth and fifth.

So there.

COMMENTS (12)

EXPLORE:INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, FOREIGN POLICY COMMUNITY, GEOPOLITICS, MOOSEHEADS