Rewarding Those Who Got It Right

Among its myriad failings, the Bush administration has repeatedly gotten it wrong when it comes to getting it right. Over the last eight years, there has consistently been no penalty for those who have gotten things - even the most important things - wrong, and no reward for those who have gotten things right.

Call it Bush Darwinism: survival of the unfittest.

Over the weekend, Barack Obama made an encouraging move to reverse that unintelligent design by appointing retired General Eric Shinseki to be the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. While having had a long and distinguished career, Shinseki is most famous for getting it right when it came to Iraq - and for suffering the consequences typical in the Bush administration for getting it right: being shown the door.

Shinseki, you may recall, was the general who told Congress in February 2003 that it would take "on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers," to occupy Iraq, because "we're talking about post-hostilities control over a piece of geography that's fairly significant with the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems."

That's about as wise and prescient an assessment as you can get. But wisdom and prescience were two attributes that had little place in the Bush White House, so Shinseki's sober judgment was quickly ridiculed by Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, the Tweedledum and Tweedledumber of the Iraq war. Rumsfeld preferred going "to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want or wish to have." And Wolfowitz, whose crystal ball said the U.S. would be greeted as liberators and that the war would pay for itself, called Shinseki's estimation "outlandish" and "wildly off the mark."

For being so spectacularly wrong, Rumsfeld was rewarded by being allowed to stay in his job for three-and-a-half more years. Wolfowitz's reward came in the form of a cushy appointment to head the World Bank. Too bad they didn't do an even worse job -- maybe they'd have earned the Presidential Medal of Freedom, like Paul Bremer and George Tenet did.

As detailed by James Fallows, Shinseki responded to Rumsfeld's and Wolfowitz's bullying with stoic dignity: "Despite being unfairly treated, despite being 100% vindicated by subsequent events, Shinseki kept his grievances entirely to himself."

In discussing the Shinseki appointment on Meet the Press, Obama gave a nod to the karmic justice aspect of it:

BROKAW: He's the man who lost his job in the Bush Administration because he said we will need more troops in Iraq than Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld thought we would need at that time.

OBAMA: He was right.

It will be nice if "he was right" continues to be something that qualifies one for a job in the Obama administration instead of the cause for dismissal it was under Bush.

Obama's commitment to reversing Bush Darwinism isn't as clear when it comes to his economic team. As Frank Rich notes, Obama's economic brain trust -- Tim Geithner, Larry Summers and Robert Rubin - didn't exactly exhibit a Shinseki-like foresight when it came to the financial meltdown.

And, as was the case with Iraq, it's not as if there weren't those that got it right when it came to the economy. Economists Joseph Stiglitz, Nouriel Roubini, Nassim Taleb, and Paul Krugman did. And financial blogger Tanta (aka Doris Dengey), who raised a red flag about Citigroup in late 2006, while Rubin continued to rake in mega-millions on the bank's increasingly risky moves. Tanta died last month at 47 -- much too soon, but long enough to know she had gotten it right.

In his 2006 book The Black Swan, Taleb wrote: "The financial ecology is swelling into gigantic, incestuous, bureaucratic banks -- when one fails, they all fall. The increased concentration among banks seems to have the effect of making financial crises less likely, but when they happen they are more global in scale and hit us very hard... I shiver at the thought."

Fittingly, on the same weekend Shinseki was appointed, Krugman was in Stockholm picking up his Nobel Prize. Here he is from 2005:

The U.S. economy is currently suffering from twin imbalances. On one side, domestic spending is swollen by the housing bubble, which has led both to a huge surge in construction and to high consumer spending, as people extract equity from their homes. On the other side, we have a huge trade deficit, which we cover by selling bonds to foreigners. As I like to say, these days Americans make a living by selling each other houses, paid for with money borrowed from China. One way or another, the economy will eventually eliminate both imbalances.

By making a deliberate effort to reward those who got it right -- on Iraq, on the economy, on global warming, on health care -- Obama will not only send a message that the days of Bush Darwinism are over, he will also puncture the White House's favorite defense, especially on Iraq, that "everybody got it wrong."

No, they didn't. And it's vital that the Bush apologists, in the midst of their Bush Legacy Project, not be allowed to rewrite history.

Recognizing and rewarding Those Who Got It Right also makes it far more likely that the next Eric Shinseki will be willing to step forward and speak up. Obama's appointment of Shinseki is a solid first step.

Follow Arianna Huffington on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ariannahuff

Comments

[Stephen C. Rose - Huffpost Blogger]

Will Barack Be A Philosophe­r-Presiden­t? http://stephencrose.wordpress.com/2008/12/15/will-barack-be-a-philosopher-president/

[MrJoyboy]

The problem is that presidents are not economists, so when it comes to the economy and picking their economic advisers, they rely on what people in their inner circle recommend, and those people often base their recommendations on what they've read and heard and on their "feelings". Short of electing somebody like Paul Krugman president, there will always be this knowledge gap.

[lentinelia]

You'd think Obama would have rewarded people who had the intelligence, integrity and guts to vote against the Iraq resolution. But he didn't.
The group around him are the equivalent to the "cold warriors" of the previous generation and previous administration. Biden as V.P. will give old Cheney a run for his money. Gates? Emmanuel? Clinton?
Are we in an echo chamber?

[amcg50]

I'm sure that there is nothing that would ever satisfy you!

[lentinelia]

Possibly not...

But it would at least have given me a glimmer of hope if Obama were include people like Feingold in his little inner circle.

It wouldn't hurt Obama to listen to people like Kucinich or Ralph Nader either.

Obama says he wants to hear all sides - arguments that he doesn't agree with - and then decide. What does he expect to hear from Clinton, Gates or Emmanuel?

[beaupritchard]

I think of all the ideas Arianna has brought to the table such as "the idea that there isn't always two sides to a story ... sometimes there's just the right side" ... this idea ... "the idea that those who get it right should be rewarded" is my favorite.

May the words "Shinseki-like foresight" join the lexicon of usage in the english language much like "the real McCoy" . May the question asked of every appointee be "does he/she have "Shinseki-like foresight"". We'd be a better nation for it.

[albtru]

Actually, he didn't have to have foresight. Shinseki saw the task and the plan to accomplish it and from experience knew that one was inadequate for the other, just as you might conclude that sending 2 cops to deal with an 18 car pileup might be inadequate.

[care4mypeeps]

Thank you Arianna for your recognition of those who sounded the alarm bells about the meltdown of the Finacial Institutions. My condolences go out to Blogger Tanta's (aka Doris Dengey) family.

She was one so young 47yrs yet insightful and wise. May her family find comfort and peace in their great loss. As for Economists Joseph Stiglitz, Nouriel Roubini, Nassim Taleb and Paul Krugman we offer our heartfelt gratitude for your willingness to put yourself out their when the Administration was not listening.

Please continue to alert us of the dangers looming in the Financial Institututions, We are all listening.

[NotMcCain]

Kudos to Arianna on "Larry King Live".

GREAT job calling out the media's efforts to smear Obama with innuendo about Blogojevich (per emailed daily Republican talking points).

When Larry asked, "Really? How'd anyone do that?' she was ready with the specifics and examples.


I only wish more people would call out these people (like Pat Buchanan, who was still spinning the, "What did Obama know and when did he know it" party line this morning).

[eilish]

And this is why Huff is my #1 news source.

[mmerose]

It's high time for Ralph Nader to be brought into the tent. Nobody has been righter than him longer, or a better explicator of the abominations of unregulated corporate rule, the military-industrial complex, and the co-option of the Democratic party strangling "democracy."

[UberReaganite]

Ralph Nader gets a bit too left for me sometimes but his intentions are always honorable so I too feel he would be a good source of insight for Obama. Health and Human Safety Sec?

[NotMcCain]

Nader shows up every 4 years to (1) get easy money from running an essentially "no cost" media campaign and then keep the taxpayer dollars and (2) try to show that democracy won't work in capitalism.


Obama nailed Nader perfectly, "All he wants is for you to listen to him. He's not interested in anything anyone else says."


Nader's not the man he was in 1970. He's a kook--whose ideas are actually harmful.

[albtru]

We need proportional representation so that minority perspectives are heard in Congress, instead of being shoved aside every November.

After all, every sound opinion starts out as a minority view.

[ideasmatter]

The Shinseki appointment is fine, but he has been appointed at VA, not Defense, where he should have been. So many others that were completely wrong about Iraq, and some that still have not acknowledged that, are now in policy making positions: Clinton, Rice, Biden, Gates, etc. The same is true for the economics appointments; which of those have ever warned us of the risks of excessive deregulation? What guarantee do we have that these people won't continue to make terrible errors of judgment? Where are the rewards for the many highly qualified people other than Shinseki that got it right from the start?

All in all, a fairly disappointing start for Obama, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, for the first 100 days, or so....

[GayGrandpa]

The Shinseki appointment is fine, but he has been appointed at VA, not Defense, where he should have been.

Gates won't be there forever and why not have a Republican clean up a Republican mess and get us out of Iraq...in the meantime...Shinseki will prove himself and will be ripe for the jump to Defense.

[eilish]

My son, who was blinded in Baghdad, and his buddies in the VA Hospital cheered when Shinseki was appointed. That's good enough for me.

[bwalsh1]

I think the case with the IL Gov. proves that cronyism and the selling of appointments happens on both sides. It is not unique to Bush, he just didn't try to cover it up very well. If we were to go to a true meritocracy, most of our elected officials wouldn't qualify. It truly is about who you know and what you know about them, or how deep your pockets are. The people who stand up against this are too few and far between, hopefully Obama will do more than just lip service against government corruption.

[freelyb]

Arianna,

Let loose, not so subtle! We need DOZENS more cabinet picks that reward those who can read writing on the wall.

[mmerose]

Yep. And nobody has been reading it louder, clearer, or longer than RALPH NADER!

[tedeger]

If Obama is looking for people who got it right, and for those who do not necessarily agree with him on everything, he might look at a man who has gotten it right for several decades - a REAL FDR Democrat, who is a world-renowned economist, and who probably has a larger, more dedicated following in the world than any other political figure. Of course, I speak of Lyndon LaRouche. He is always disenchanted with whoever the media darling is, and has more accurate forecasts than anyone else. Of course, he has a few outrageous ideas, but who doesn't? At least in his own field, he has never been equaled. No other prominent figure can make that claim. It would be nice to see him rewarded for his perspicacity instead of being wrongly degraded and even punished for the crime of being right.

[stevemarvin]

I appreciate your logic, Arianna, but I'm then mystified as to why you have never trumpeted the cause of someone like Dennis Kucinich, especially during 2006 and 2007, when endorsement of his views, if not his candidacy, would have helped shape public debate in a way favorable to almost everyone. Instead, you (and your site) seemed to treat him as if he were alternately invisible or eccentric, marginalizing not only him but his progressive supporters. It's a shame.

[andyboy]

Great post. You can count on the fingers of one hand the number of real liberals in Washington these days. There isn't really even a Democratic party anymore. It's just the right wing of the GOP. So you see we have no choice in the end.

It's sad to see honest hard working Americans yearn for justice and equality, peace and opportunity, and get none. No matter which way they vote.

[mmerose]

BRAVO! If the idea is rewarding being right, Kucinich is a great nominee! Like Shinseki, also consistent and courageous and uncomplaining.

[mmerose]

One outrage from the Primaries was that Hillary Clinton had the nerve to complain about getting asked the first question in debates, after Kucinich got one question, about a UFO! And feminists claimed special victimhood for Hillary over media focus on her appearance, when the sniping at Kucinich's looks, and even his wife's tongue piercing, was ten times as vicious!

[Wonderwheel]

So...what? The Shinseki appointment is what.... one good appointment out of 30 bad ones? Take the Susan Rice appointment to the UN for example. That was an appointment in the best Bush tradition that DID REWARD spmeone who got it terribly wrong, not only wrong on the facts but wrong on the policy. When Susan Rice said that Colin Powell proved the case against Iraq she was wrong in three ways. First she was wrong on the facts--Powell's dog and pony power point show didn't prove a darn thing. Holding up a vial of fake anthrax was in no stretch of the imagination proof of a bio-weapons program in Iraq. Second, she said that "informed people" agreed with Powell, yet in saying so she had failed to notice that informed people knew that every leading news source in Europe was that very same day debunking the Powell performance.

But third and most importantly,Rice approved of the Bush doctrine of preemptive war. We recently remembered Pearl Harbor on December 7 which President Roosevelt called a "Day of Infamy." What was the infamy? Well it was that Japan had engaged in a preemptive attack. If Susan Rice could cheerlead the Bush Doctrine of preemptive attack then that is an inexcusable failure "to get it right."

Shinseki is just the exception that proves the rule: Obama is following in the Bush tradition of rewarding people who got it wrong.

[dianhow]

Snakepliskin & wonderwheel. I think time will prove that Obama's appt's are, for the most part, good ones. Can we all wait a year and then discuss what happens,,or must we all rush to judgement before Obama even begins? Such gloom and doom projections. Lots of people were very wrong on the war. Muslims do not want us on their land ! Recall some of Bush / Cheney/ Condi / Rumsfield comments: Possibility of ' a mushroom cloud' 'mission accomplished in 2003 " " Bring em on" Bush joked about lost WMD ( it's on tape ) said Iraq was involved in 9 / 11, now admits it was NOT They promised the war 'would pay for itself' and we'd be greeted as liberators' the war would be short'' Our soldiers did not even have enough armor to protect them...Surge or no surge..that misses the point..we had no busines there in the first place. The first Bush knew that and got out fast...his son was not so smart. Cheney's Halliburton Co. made billions in Iraq, some for work not even done.
M God..we sure have poor memories. Read up on this stuff for pete's sake..

[shorterpost]

Its pointless to reply to the blind but your delusional if you think Obama made 30 bad appointments. Can you name the 29 others?

And your just twisting quotes to your own arguments. The "infamy" was merely the attack itself. It did not present itself as a doctrine of preemptive strike. In you believe in war so much, perhaps we should attack all Muslim countries as a preemptive strike policy. Why don't you go join the army and go to Iraq , instead of being a couch commando? Why didn't we attack Russia instead of just having an arm's race? Making stuff up as usual, typical Republican BS and Fox News type arguments with no real facts and exaggerations.

I'll wait on the other 29 bad appointments but i wouldn't mind you posting it one by one.

[snakepliskin]

Wow, from a 'Myriad of Failings' the distinguished author of this blog references two dubious media advanced 'Failings'. By referencing Shinseki you imply the policy of the Bush administration on the war was a failure? By what criteria? Deaths? Costs? time in country? What? Please pick the criterion and let me know what is your successs benchmark.....oh, that's right.. you don't have a success benchmark. Based on what Obama says the surge did not work like it was suppose to, rather the Sunni and Shia awakenings were the real catalysts in achieving stability. I don't think Shinseki or anyone else predicted the Awakenings.

As far as Krugman goes....Huh?

Later.

[breezi]

Snake, the criterion is LIES! The decision to go to war was sold to Congress, to the media, and to the public based on LIES--admitted LIES. Whether the "surge" worked or not, is therefore moot. So, all this other BS about benchmarks is total c***, too. "Stability" (achieved by awakenings)....WHAT STABILITY?

[snakepliskin]

Once again, what is your definition of Stability. Mine is that we are able to withdraw troops, leave a political structure intact and hopefully have an ally in the future. What are yours?.......Let me guess....LIES, LIES, LIES...Bush LIED, Troops DIED.....nice.

[dogwatch]

Success benchmark number one. No preemptive war.

[Wonderwheel]

So...what? The Shinseki appointment is what.... one good appointment out of 30 bad ones? Take the Susan Rice appointment to the UN for example. That was an appointment in the best Bush tradition that DID REWARD spmeone who got it terribly wrong, not only wrong on the facts but wrong on the policy. When Susan Rice said that Colin Powell proved the case against Iraq she was wrong in three ways. First she was wrong on the facts--Powell's dog and pony power point show didn't prove a darn thing. Holding up a vial of fake anthrax was in no stretch of the imagination proof of a bio-weapons program in Iraq. Second, she said that "informed people" agreed with Powell, yet in saying so she had failed to notice that informed people knew that every leading news source in Europe was that very same day debunking the Powell performance.

But third and most importantly,even if Rice thought that there was a program in Iraq, that did not make the Bush doctrine of

[hopeless277]

Ya know, I'm just sick and tired of everyone saying how many mistakes Bush/Cheney made. Look who's walking away with our tax dollars for the next 500 years. Republicans, that's who. And where do you thing that money will eventually end up? In the RNCs bank account, that's where. Everything Bush/Cheney did was planned down to the last detail. Iraq? You bet. Out of chaos comes profit. Look at Blackwater, Hallibuton, KBR, the list goes on and on. Katrina? Same thing. Contractors making off with billions. Wall St. crash? Pump hundreds of billions into banks owned by Republicans and get the kickback with campaign contributions and bribes. Torture? Perpetuate militant Islam. If you want your defense contractor buds to get rich you gotta have a boogy man, right? It has all been planned and executed perfectly. Oh, and the Big 3? Bust that damn union forever. No one needs more than $5-$6 an hour to make cars. No one needs pensions and insurance except of course your cherished member of congress. If this nation EVER recovers from 8 years of Republican rule it will be a miracle. Just wait until the next time a Republican is elected president. Democracy will be just a distant memory.

[JohnShank]

Oh there's no denying, hopeless277, that the Bush admin. was always in it for the money! These are flag-huggers. They use the flag to further their agenda of ra pin g the country, yet couldn't care less about the U.S. Constitution. This is why I am so upset that Pelosi, Reid and Co. not pursuing justice against these criminals.

[mmerose]

Yes, the Project for a New American Century certainly got it's heart's desire in terms of the opportunity to pursue the invasion. But I think they really planned on coming out of it as lasting heroes who had secured strategic dominance in the region, not as screwups who created all the rest of your "objectives." While they may see much of what you say as a silver lining, it is in the nature of a booby prize. But there is some possiblity that it was foreseen as win-win outcomes. I still don't think they purposely bungled Iraq, even though they have never shown much sign of caring very much.

[rckayla]

hopeless277, I cannot believe what you wrote -- "Bust that damn union forever. No one needs more than $5-$6 an hour to make cars. No one needs pensions and insurance except of course your cherished member of congress." Are you kidding with this statement?!? The unions were formed to "protect" the American worker from people like you who think they only deserve slave wages and no pensions or insurance!!!! Granted some unions have become money hungry since their inception -- and the UAW union should lower their workers $70 an hour salary to a more reasonable rate during these poor economic times -- but to bust or get rid of unions that protect workers? I don't think that is a good idea at all. If anything, I am an advocate for the American worker to be able to form or join a union if they want because, under Bush's administration, there has been a backlash against unionizing or union members!

[Patricia84]

He wasn't kidding. Just making a point. And using sarcasm to point the ugliness of "the RNC plan."