The Picture of Obama's "Minimalism"

You want to understand what Barack Obama's "minimalism" on economic issues really looks like? Then take a look at this picture of Obama's emergency economic meeting on Friday, and look at the guy sitting directly to Obama's left. Yes, that's Bob Rubin, as I noted in my column this week - "the NAFTA architect who gutted market regulations as Bill Clinton's treasury secretary and who then tried to rustle up government favors for Enron as a $17-million-a-year executive at Citigroup, a bank embroiled in today's implosion."

This guy - a person who had a very clear hand in getting America into this crisis - is the guy who Obama is relying on to help him get America out of the crisis, not the progressive economic experts who have been sounding the alarm for years, not the sober academics that have studied the problem, but a big corporate donor who is directly embroiled in the scandal himself (Oh, and by the way, at least in that photo, there aren't any of those progressives elsewhere around the table - there's Lawrence Summers and Laura Tyson - both top economic advisers in the Clinton administration when it backed the financial deregulation that is fueling this crisis...and, of course, we know Obama has hired Rubin protege Jason Furman as his campaign's top economic adviser).

Forgetting about the campaign implications of a Democrat continuing to align himself with Wall Street, this is precisely the fox-in-the-henhouse problem that needs to end if our economy is going to be fixed. It is, in other words, exactly this kind of "minimalism" from Obama that our country and our economy cannot afford right now. And if you can't see that or argue that pointing this out is supposedly some awful sin or plot to help John McCain (who I've written time and time again is far worse), then you are too afflicted by Partisan War Syndrome (or perhaps too personally wealthy to be affected by this crisis) to really see how bad this is, and how important this is beyond one election.

Comments

[Opus007]

It is good to know who will be whispering in their ears. Knowledge is power. But McCain with Liberman and Gramm whispering in his ear is far worse-- actually scary. It is up to the American people to wake up and start calling their elected officials to make their concerns known.

I was at a wedding yesterday. The few Republicans there were all set for a war with Iran. With what Army? With what money? Our military is already stretched to the breaking point. and I don't think China is willing to bankroll another war. It is so startiling that the pro war contingent just igonores these fundamental questions.

[S1m0n]

You're kidding. One face in a group photo, and you're making dramatically portentious conclusions about what Obama is or isn't going to be.

Based on ONE FACE?

Dude, one of Barack Obama's most consistent traits is that he also asks advice from people he DOESN'T agree with. He knows he's not invariably correct, and that the people he's talking to aren't idiots and presumably have a reason for their position, so he seeks them out and makes sure he understands those reasons before making a final decision.

That's a good thing. If you run around declaring the sky falling every time this occurs, you're going to have an awfully busy next 8 years.

[gloryoski]

Perfectly justified post. That McCain's advisers are worse is both obvious and immaterial. No one who halfway understands what's going on here will vote for McCain (or a third party) off this association if they weren't going to already.

Even if it weren't Robert Rubin and even if we weren't in as big a mess as we are, no reason why Obama's economic team couldn't be more balanced. (Manages to be "centrist" [itself a euphemism in terms of ecomonists] without even being bipartisan. Not-neat trick.)

But it is Robert Rubin and we are in as big a mess as we are. Obama is way too smart not to know what that's gonna look like to anyone paying attention and he deserves to be called on it especially if he's gonna try to sound so populist on the stump. .

[BadChristian]

"The conclusion that we are in trouble is unavoidable. I report the assault on nature evidenced in coal mining that tears the tops off mountains and dumps them into rivers, sacrificing the health and lives of those in the to short term profit, and I see a link between that process and the stock-market frenzy which scorns long-term investments - genuine savings - in favor of quick turnovers and speculative bubbles whose inevitable bursting leaves insiders with stuffed pockets and millions of small stockholders, pensioners, and employees out of work, out of luck and out of hope.
"And then I see a connection between those disasters and the repeal of sixty-year-old banking and securities regulations designed during the Great Depression to prevent exactly that kind of human and economic damage. Who pushed for the removal of that firewall? An administration and Congress who are political marionettes of the speculators, and who are well rewarded for their efforts with indispensable campaign contributions. Even honorable opponents of the practice get trapped in the web of an electoral system that effectively limits competition to those who can afford to spend millions in their run for office. Like it or not, candidates know that the largesse on which their political futures depend will last only as long as their votes are satisfactory to the sleek 'bundlers' who turn the spigots of cash on and off."
--Bill Moyers
"Moyers On Democracy"

[ksyellowdog]

I still think we can force Obama to the left given enough pressure from the people. We stand a far better chance of doing it with him vs McSame!

[thenextquagmire]

I don't follow your post. You want Obama to run as a third party candidate, because that "my friend" is what is going to take to totally, completely, change the dynamics of economic teams for the established two parties. I give way more credit to Obama for bringing in 39 year old Furman, and 40 year old Austan Goolsbee and having an open mind. Not to mention that we know Obama is working on the sidelines with others.

However, you want impression???? Look at who's McCain chief ill-advised Economic Advisers are. Some are directly involved with the this economic mess and others know how to create a mess of their own. You have Phil Gramm, and John McCain economic advisor Douglas Holtz-Eakin was Bush's economic advisor, and Carly Fiorina, a McCain campaign surrogate and economic adviser, is fired HP boss. And for McCain himself, Deregulation became an ideology and he himself, the Presidential candidate, John McCain was a facilitator of greed.

So as far as your point being, that Obama's continuity to past Democratic economic advisers, a move you nonchallantly see as helping McCain, i don't agree with at all. Things don't exist in a vacum, and McCain's ill-advised advisers are much worse. That's something Obama needs to highlight.

[Unsui]

I agree with you, quagmire, well put.

[barrista]

meow

[snarkopolitan]

Not sure whether it's a good idea to have Rubin in the picture, literally, but he is one of many people Obama is consulting. Would like to see a wide variety of opinions represented, instead of a small circle of nodding flunkies.

[Citizen54]

Mr Sirota is correct.
But what do we do?
Not vote? Vote for a third party that we all know has zero chance of winning anything?

I hope the author in a subsequent post will offer some suggestions and something more than "They both suck."

[RebaG]

I can understand how this might be a problem if Robert Rubin were Obama's ONLY economic advisor but the man to Obama's right is Paul Volker. Moreover, what about Austan Goolsbee, Jeffrey Liebman, David Cutler, Karen Kornbluh, Daniel Tarullo, etc? Just because Obama consults with a person doesn't mean he'll heed all of their advise.

[RPLinNYC]

Thanks for this post. Yes, I noticed that in the photo, too.
Dark days for the U.S.