Posted By Daniel W. Drezner

I've received a bunch of e-mail queries asking me what I think of the Charles Freeman affair.  One could argue that Freeman's actual policy positions got him into trouble.  (When a letter to the Wall Street Journal on his behalf allows that "Chas has controversial political views, not all of which we share," it suggests that something is amiss).  One could also argue pretty persuasively that the Israel Lobby flexed its muscle (as Freeman himself argues in his missive to FP's Laura Rozen). 

In the wake of Freeman's withdrawal, I think everyone is vastly overestimating the influence of outside forces and underestimating the idiosyncracies of Freeman in trying to interpret what the hell happened.  I don't mean his positions -- I mean his relative eagerness to get back into the game.  Freeman's statements on the matter suggests that he was not all that eager to re-enter government life: 

"As those who know me are well aware, I have greatly enjoyed life since retiring from government.  Nothing was further from my mind than a return to public service.  When Admiral Blair asked me to chair the NIC I responded that I understood he was “asking me to give my freedom of speech, my leisure, the greater part of my income, subject myself to the mental colonoscopy of a polygraph, and resume a daily commute to a job with long working hours and a daily ration of political abuse.”  I added that I wondered “whether there wasn’t some sort of downside to this offer.” 

"I wasn't so eager to go back to the government, anyway."

Sometimes these statements are boilerplate, but I don't get that sense from Freeman.  

To put it another way -- if Hillary Clinton had been in the same situation as Freeman, there's no way in hell that she withdraws her name. 

Steve Walt claims that, "this incident reinforces my suspicion that the Democratic Party is in fact a party of wimps."  He's got a point, but I'm not sure it's the one he intended to make.  Freeman is just one of a longer list of policy wonks -- Wendy Sherman, Caroline Atkinson, Robert Gallucci, etc. -- who have either declined or changed their minds about high-ranking postings.  While none of these other names were targeted by the Israel Lobby, they all found the opportunity costs of entering goverment service too onerous.  

Question to readers: Has the vetting process in DC become too absurd, or are Obama's subcabinet candidates too thin-skinned? 

Posted By Daniel W. Drezner

During the first month of the Obama administration, there have been a few proposals coming from the Treasury Department, and it's safe to say that markets have not been too thrilled about them.  A large part of that is because the proposals are so vague and opaque that even Felix Salmon is having difficulty interpreting them

To be fair to Geithner, however, it's not like he has a lot of help.  Check out this Treasury web page listing all of the political appointees at Treasury. 

ABC's Matthew Jaffe reported in fuller depth on this problem earlier in the week: 

Treasury has not moved quickly enough to fill key positions -- such as deputy secretary, various undersecretary posts, and general counsel -- which may have contributed to a lack of details in Treasury's plans, which in turn caused a dive in the stock market.

"If the secretary had a full staff he would've been in a stronger position to work out the details, so I'm sure that has been part of the problem," West said....

Some analysts believe Geithner is suffering from the lack of a complete staff at his disposal.

"It's an overwhelming job even if you have a full staff, and that's certainly not yet the case," said Rob Nichols, president of the Financial Services Forum.

Nichols, a former Treasury spokesman, estimated that right now Geithner "probably has 10 or 20 percent of the political appointees around him that he ultimately will have."

"Treasury is not moving fast enough," West said. "Given all of the enormous economic and banking challenges that we face, we really need a full team on the field."

The story gives a couple of possible reasons -- the new ethics rules, difficulties with vetting -- but they don't really pass the smell test.  What I don't understand is why the Obama White House is not making this staffing issue its first, second, and third priorities right now.  Given the gargantuan tasks facing Treasury right now, I guarantee that the deputy and undersecretary positions at 1500 Pennsylvania Ave. are far more important than the Secretary of Commerce.

I woked at Treasury during the last transition, when it took close to six months to get the Deputy Secretary confirmed.  It was.... a difficult time, to say the least.  And that was when countries like Argentina and Turkey were in trouble -- not all of the the OECD and the BRICs. 

Paul Volcker is pretty angry about this -- as well he should be.  But the person he should be angry at is his boss. 

Posted By Daniel W. Drezner

Like many Americans, I'm looking forward to the end of the Bush era and the inauguration of Barack Obama.  Until this weekend, however, it hadn't occurred to me that this event was going to start prior to Tuesday.  Apparently, however, it's a several-day-long be-in

And a lot of out-of-towners are going to be crashing in DC.  My train from Boston to New York today was packed to the gills with Bostonians headed to DC for the inauguration.  Given the weather in the Northeast today, they chose the right mode of transportation. 

Posted By Daniel W. Drezner

So I see that President-elect Barack Obama has been meeting and greeting pundits and columnists from across the political spectrum.

While what was said was off the record, Andrew Sullivan does blog his own impressions of his conversation with Obama: 

[I]t's hard to express the relief I feel that this man will be the president soon. I realize that's what I feel above all else: relief.

I may disagree with him at times, and criticize him at times, but his great gift is showing that he does not expect people to change their convictions in order to find common areas of agreement.

Stipulating that I'm probably looking forward to the transition as much as the next guy, this kind of statement has a familiar ring to it. 

I remember where I was at the last presidential transition -- working at the U.S. Treasury. And what was interesting was that, despite the fact that Treasury had done very well under the Clinton administration in general and Larry Summers in particular, there really was a feeling of anticipation about Bush taking over. 

Why? Because after eight years of one administration, even the stuff that used to seem endearing becomes annoying. The Clinton staffers chronic lateness to meetings, for example, drove the Treasury people batty. They welcomed a the more orderly schedule of the Bushies -- right up until the moment they started f%$#ing up policy. 

My point is not to say that Obama is going to be like George W. Bush. My point is that, until he starts accumulating a record as president, one should take these platitudes with more than a pinch of salt. [And here I thought your point was that you were bitter that you haven't been asked to meet and greet Obama!--ed.]

Posted By Daniel W. Drezner

Neil Irwin writes in the Washington Post about Barack Obama's surprising ability to remake the Federal Reserve Board of Governors pretty damn quickly: 
President-elect Barack Obama this morning named Daniel K. Tarullo to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, the first step in an unusual opportunity Obama has to remake the Federal Reserve at a time the institution is undergoing dramatic change.
Although it is common for presidents to appoint several Fed governors by the end of a term, Obama will be able to appoint three of seven members of the Fed's board of governors immediately upon taking office, subject to confirmation by the Senate. He can either reappoint or replace Chairman Ben S. Bernanke when his term expires in January 2010, and he will make the same decision for Vice Chairman Donald L. Kohn when his term ends that June. Governors serve a 14-year term, though in practice, slots turn over every few years. Thus, within 18 months of taking office, Obama will likely have appointed five of seven Fed governors, including its top two members. Tarullo, if confirmed, will be one of them. He was a top aide to President Bill Clinton for international economic policy in the 1990s and since then has taught at Georgetown University's law school. He published a book this year on the Basel II international standards for bank regulation, arguing that the approach needs to be changed in major ways to prevent financial crises like that now underway. He is thus well poised to represent the Fed in its coordination with bank regulators around the world in responding to the financial crisis, and to take part in what is likely to be a vigorous debate on how the U.S. financial regulatory system should be overhauled and what the Fed's role should be.... The Obama administration is likely to move quickly to fill the three open governors slots, said Democrats who have been in touch with the transition team. Two of those slots are currently vacant -- nominations were held up by congressional Democrats -- and a third is occupied by Bush appointee Randall Kroszner, whose term has expired but who is serving until his replacement takes office.  In filling the three governor slots, Obama should seek to bring a diversity of experience to the Fed in an effort to manage the various dimensions of the crisis, said economists who study the central bank. With Tarullo, he has filled one with an expert in international banking regulation. For the other two, he might appoint one person with a background in financial markets and another academic experience in macroeconomics and monetary policy.
Tarullo is an interesting choice, in that a) he's a lawyer, not an economist; and b) he's known more for trade policy than financial policy.  Having interacted with him a fair amount, however, he's also a pretty sharp guy, and he did just write a book on Basle II.  The diversity-of-experience gambit makes some sense. 
 
I'm in Washington DC for Very Important Meetings and Negotiations, and also to pick up the latest gossip on who's getting apppinted to what within the foreign affairs agencies.  After consulting with my vast network of the plugged-in Obama folk, here's what I can tell you about who's getting appointed to which jobs:
No one has a f@#$ing clue who is going where. 
Seriously, I've heard conflicting accounts about particular names and positions.  The two things all my sources agree on is:
  1. It's going to be a while before people are named to undersecretary/senior director positions (which has been true for previous administrations as well, I should add);
  2. The people who want these jobs are pretty stressed out. 
That is all. 

Posted By Daniel W. Drezner

At some point this week the meme about the incoming Obama administration switched from a discussion of the pitfalls of a "Team of Rivals" to a discussion of the pitfalls of "The Best and the Brightest."  Here's the Washington Post's Alec MacGillis
Barack Obama's chief economic adviser was one of the youngest people to be tenured at Harvard and later became its president. His budget director went to Princeton and the London School of Economics, his choice for ambassador to the United Nations was a Rhodes scholar, and his White House counsel hit the trifecta: Harvard, Cambridge and Yale Law.... [S]keptics say Obama's predilection for big thinkers with dazzling résumés carries risks, noting, for one, that several of President John F. Kennedy's "best and brightest" led the country into the Vietnam War. Obama is to be credited, skeptics say, for bringing with him so few political acquaintances from Illinois. But, they say, his team reflects its own brand of insularity, drawing on the world that Obama entered as an undergraduate at Columbia and in which he later rose to eminence as president of the Harvard Law Review and as a law professor at the University of Chicago.... The Ivy-laced network taking hold in Washington is drawing scorn from many conservatives, who have in recent decades decried the leftward drift of academia and cast themselves as defenders of regular Americans against highbrow snobbery. Joseph Epstein wrote in the latest Weekly Standard -- before noting that former president Ronald Reagan went to Eureka College -- that "some of the worst people in the United States have gone to the Harvard or Yale Law Schools . . . since these institutions serve as the grandest receptacles in the land for our good students: those clever, sometimes brilliant, but rarely deep young men and women who, joining furious drive to burning if ultimately empty ambition, will do anything to get ahead." The libertarian University of Chicago law professor Richard Epstein, who is not related to Joseph Epstein, worries that the team's exceptionalism could lead to overly complex policies. "They are really smart people, but they will never take an obvious solution if they can think of an ingenious one. They're all too clever by half," he said. "These degrees confer knowledge but not judgment. Their heads are on grander themes . . . and they'll trip on obstacles on the ground." All agree that the picks reveal something about Obama, suggesting he will make decisions much as he did in the U.S. Senate -- by bringing as many smart people into the room as possible and hearing them out.... [Nicholas] Lemann said Obama's penchant for expertise seems tempered with a respect for people who had, like Obama, left the path to academic jobs or big law firms to run for public office.  
And then there's the New York Times' Frank Rich
The stewards of the Vietnam fiasco had pedigrees uncannily reminiscent of some major Obama appointees. McGeorge Bundy, the national security adviser, was, as Halberstam put it, “a legend in his time at Groton, the brightest boy at Yale, dean of Harvard College at a precocious age.” His deputy, Walt Rostow, “had always been a prodigy, always the youngest to do something,” whether at Yale, M.I.T. or as a Rhodes scholar. Robert McNamara, the defense secretary, was the youngest and highest paid Harvard Business School assistant professor of his era before making a mark as a World War II Army analyst, and, at age 44, becoming the first non-Ford to lead the Ford Motor Company. The rest is history that would destroy the presidency of Lyndon Johnson and inflict grave national wounds that only now are healing. In the Obama transition, our Clinton-fixated political culture has been hyperventilating mainly over the national security team, but that’s not what gives me pause. Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates were both wrong about the Iraq invasion, but neither of them were architects of that folly and both are far better known in recent years for consensus-building caution (at times to a fault in Clinton’s case) than arrogance. Those who fear an outbreak of Clintonian drama in the administration keep warning that Obama has hired a secretary of state he can’t fire. But why not take him at his word when he says “the buck will stop with me”? If Truman could cashier Gen. Douglas MacArthur, then surely Obama could fire a brand-name cabinet member in the (unlikely) event she goes rogue. No, it’s the economic team that evokes trace memories of our dark best-and-brightest past. Lawrence Summers, the new top economic adviser, was the youngest tenured professor in Harvard’s history and is famous for never letting anyone forget his brilliance. It was his highhanded disregard for his own colleagues, not his impolitic remarks about gender and science, that forced him out of Harvard’s presidency in four years. Timothy Geithner, the nominee for Treasury secretary, is the boy wonder president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. He comes with none of Summers’s personal baggage, but his sparkling résumé is missing one crucial asset: experience outside academe and government, in the real world of business and finance. Postgraduate finishing school at Kissinger & Associates doesn’t count.
There are a few other examples of stories like this, but I think you get the drift.  These stories are just as overblown as the "team of rivals" meme.  Halberstam's "best and brightest" were known primarily as brilliant scholars before they joined the Kennedy administration.  While many Obama's major appointments are smart, none of them besides Larry Summers have any extensive experience working at an Ivy League institution.  Indeed, as Lemann observed in the Post above, Obama likes people who have stepped away from the academy. The other irony is that the undercurrent of these stories contradicts the overt theme.  The undercurrent is progressive dissatisfaction with Summers, Geithner, and others who worked for Robert Rubin.  The critics' suggestion for how to correct for this bias?  Apparently, they should hire more academics.  Rich writes, "In our current financial quagmire, there have also been those who had the wisdom to sound alarms before Rubin, Summers or Geithner did. Among them were not just economists like Joseph Stiglitz and Nouriel Roubini."  See Michael Hirsch and Josh Marshall as well.  So, really, this "best and brightest" critique is kind of an unholy alliance between conservatives grasping at straws to criticize the Obama transition and progressives who feel screwed over by the economic appointments.  [But aren't the progressives right?  Wouldn't Stiglitz be a smart pick for an administration position?--ed.  Um... no, because this overlooks the fact that, based on his DC experiences in the nineties, Joe Stiglitz's managerial, bureaucratic, and political skills are all really, really bad.  Furthermore, his writings since that time suggest that the DC experience has curdled rather than improved on these skills.] 

Posted By Daniel W. Drezner

My latest National Interest Online essay offers some further thoughts on why lawyers and not public policy grads are getting the good foreign policy jobs (one reason not offered in the essay -- "lawyers" is more elegant to write than "public policy grads").  It expands on the signaling argument I made here.  My partly-tongue-in-cheek suggestion for how to correct this situation comes at the end: 
So there are logical reasons why lawyers might be getting the top foreign-policy posts. Are these substantively good reasons, however? As a professor with an interest in seeing his graduates thrive in the public sector, I think attending a public-policy school should send an even stronger signal. It should say that the person in question is well-trained and has the other traits necessary for a leadership position. Perhaps the next step should be to make the first year of a public-policy degree more like the first year of law school. After all, why should one-Ls have all the fun?
[Cue Satanic cackle here!!--ed.]

Posted By Daniel W. Drezner

Your humble blogger has been a fan of Defense Secretary Robert Gates for some time now.  So it's gratifying to see that I'm not the only one who's noticed the under-the-radar quality of competence that Gates has brought to the Bush administration.  David Sanger provides a pretty shrewd analysis in the New York Times of how Obama's team of centrists will be executing a pretty radical rethink of foreign policy: 
all three of his choices — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as the rival turned secretary of state; Gen. James L. Jones, the former NATO commander, as national security adviser, and Robert M. Gates, the current and future defense secretary — have embraced a sweeping shift of priorities and resources in the national security arena.... The [Obama] adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly, said the three have all embraced “a rebalancing of America’s national security portfolio” after a huge investment in new combat capabilities during the Bush years.... A year ago, to studied silence from the Bush White House, Mr. Gates began giving a series of speeches about the limits of military power in wars in which no military victory is possible. He made popular the statistic, quoted by Mr. Obama, that the United States has more members of military marching bands than foreign service officers. He also denounced “the gutting of America’s ability to engage, assist and communicate with other parts of the world — the ‘soft power’ which had been so important throughout the cold war.” He blamed both the Clinton and Bush administrations and said later in an interview that “it is almost like we forgot everything we learned in Vietnam.” Mr. Obama’s choice for national security adviser, General Jones, took the critique a step further in a searing report this year on what he called the Bush administration’s failed strategy in Afghanistan, where Mr. Obama has vowed to intensify the fight as American troops depart from Iraq. When the report came out, General Jones was widely quoted as saying, “Make no mistake, NATO is not winning in Afghanistan,” a comment that directly contradicted the White House. But he went on to describe why the United States and its allies were not winning: After nearly seven years of fighting, they had failed to develop a strategy that could dependably bring reconstruction projects and other assistance into areas from which the Taliban had been routed — making each victory a temporary one, reversed as soon as the forces departed. Several times during his presidency, Mr. Bush promised to alter that strategy, even creating a “civilian reserve corps” of nation-builders under State Department auspices, but the administration never committed serious funds or personnel to the effort. If Mr. Obama and his team can bring about that kind of shift, it could mark one of the most significant changes in national security strategy in decades and greatly enhance the powers of Mrs. Clinton as secretary of state.
 In related news, Kevin Drum eats his hat.  UPDATE:  In another related story, I'm quoted at length in this Erika Niedowski story in The National about the Obama-Clinton pairing.  My favorite quip was about their attitudes towards Bill Clinton: 
"I'm pretty sure the one thing that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have in common is they don’t want Bill Clinton to open his mouth very much." 

Posted By Daniel W. Drezner

Ezra Klein and Megan McArdle have divergent takes on the caliber of Obama's incoming cabinet vs. Bush's incoming cabinet back in 2000.  Intriguingly, on this issue they go against their ideological predilections. Klein first
"Isn’t it amazing," asks Krugman, "just how impressive the people being named to key positions in the Obama administration seem? Bye-bye hacks and cronies, hello people who actually know what they’re doing. For a bunch of people who were written off as a permanent minority four years ago, the Democrats look remarkably like the natural governing party these days, with a deep bench of talent." That certainly feels true. But the Bush administration started out with a fairly deep bench. Colin Powell as Secretary of State. Paul O'Neill --a former deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget and a past chairman of the RAND Corporation -- as Secretary of the Treasury. Columbia's Glenn Hubbard as chair of the Council of Economic Advisers. Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice providing foreign policy expertise. Indeed, the Bush team was lauded for being such a natural entity of governance: These were figures from the Nixon and Ford and Bush administrations, and they were backed by graybeards like Baker and Scowcroft and Greenspan. What could go wrong?
McArdle dissents
Obama's got a much, much better economics team than Bush started out with.  I agree with his endorsement of Glenn Hubbard.  But Paul O'Neill wasn't exactly an a-lister even before he turned out to have fantastic(ally entertaining!) verbal impulse control problems.  And Larry Lindsay did not match up to Larry Summers in stature, though of course what he got fired for was not being incompetent, but telling the truth.  Bush's second term team has actually been pretty stellar, but his first term left a lot to be desired. 
I actually think they're both right.  Klein is correct that, John Ashcroft excepted, Bush's first cabinet was viewed at the time in largely glowing terms.  Remember when everyone thought Tommy Thompson was the perfect guy to take over HHS?  When Bush deciding to keep George Tenet and Norm Mineta in his cabinet were acts of statesmanlike bipartisanship?  Ironically, Ashcroft is likely the only first-term cabinet member whose reputation has gone up in retrospect.  At the same time, McArdle is correct that the economic team was not considered the strength of the cabinet -- the national security team had the all-stars in Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld, etc.  The simple fact is that what matters in any organization is the leadership from the top.  George W. Bush put together a group of strong-willed individuals, but displayed little interest in refereeing disputes among them.  Will Obama do better?  I'm cautiously optimistic, but we won't know for a while.   

Posted By Daniel W. Drezner

That's the title of my latest essay over at The National Interest Online, which discusses Tim Geithner and the rest of Obama's economic team.  Go check it out.  This is not the key paragraph, but it is the one I enjoyed writing the most: 
[O]ne could forgive Geithner right now if his head swelled just a little bit. The Dow Jones Industrial Average shot up five hundred points on Friday as word of his appointment leaked. The Dow jumped close to another four hundred points yesterday after Obama officially introduced him. One has to wonder if, sometime this week, when Geithner’s wife asks him to do the dishes, he will be tempted to respond, “Have you caused the Dow to jump by more than ten percent? I didn’t think so!”

Posted By Daniel W. Drezner

Scott Helman quotes me going against the grain in his Boston Globe story today.  Here's his lead: 
If President-elect Barack Obama taps Senator Hillary Clinton to be his secretary of state, he would be giving her oversight of an area where the two former rivals diverged sharply during their prolonged primary battle: foreign policy. From their first clashes in the summer of 2007 through spring this year, Obama and Clinton fought bitterly over who had a deeper understanding of the world, exchanging sharp words over their international experience and their views on diplomacy, military strikes against terrorists, the right approach toward Iran, and the genesis of the Iraq war. It is the one arena in which Obama and Clinton articulated significantly different visions. On a host of other issues - taxes, healthcare, jobs, free trade, investments in renewable energy - their positions were often indistinguishable.
And here's my quote: 
Daniel Drezner, a professor of international politics at Tufts University, however, disputes the notion that Obama and Clinton differed significantly during the primary race on foreign affairs, arguing that on issues such as diplomacy, their heated rhetoric belied a broad similarity in approach. "A lot of the foreign policy skirmishes between the two were more about style than anything else," he said.
Looking over Helman's evidence, I stand by my quote.  In my memory, Obama and Clinton bickered more over health care than foreign policy (though they clearly bickered about both), and their sharpest disagreement was about the Iraq decision in 2002/3.  They had to disagree on something because it was a primary and they needed to differentiate themselves.  That does not mean there is a lot of daylight between them on substantive policy questions.  Readers are encouraged to tell me if they think my assessment is wrong.  I have two additional thoughts abut Hillary as SoS:
  1. Because of her rock star quality, I suspect she would be a diplomatic force multiplier.  Countries will be more appreciative of a visit by Hillary Clinton than they would if Richard Holbrooke, Bill Richardson or John Kerry were coming to town. 
  2. Based on her management abilities to date, I fear for the denizens of Foggy Bottom.  The State Department is a whopper of a bureaucracy, and I don't know how well she'll do at managing it. 
UPDATE:  Politico's Ben Smith has a good story on the nausea a Clinton appointment is creating among some Obama supporters.  He quotes this Matt Yglesias post claiming that, "the specific policy area at issue seems to be one in which the two of them aren’t all that well-aligned," but, again, the biggest difference is over a decision made six years ago.  Smith also quotes Robert Kuttner saying it's a bad idea -- and since Kuttner is one of my anti-predictors, I'm now warming to the idea.  In a follow-up blog post, Smith adds, " there was ever a campaign that took the complaints of liberal bloggers seriously, it was ... well, not Obama's."  Heh. 

Posted By Daniel W. Drezner

Reliable sources tell me that Dennis Ross has cancelled his Georgetown classes for the spring semester.  Danieldrezner.com -- your erratic source for possibly meaningless gossip about the foreign policy transition!

Daniel W. Drezner is professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.

Read More