Last night at a political meeting in my neighborhood, progressive writer and occasional Huff Post blogger David Sirota used the addition of centrist economist Jason Furman to the Obama team as an object lesson in placing too much faith in politicians. "Barack Obama is an empty vessel," Sirota said, and then mixing his metaphors he added that Democrats have been projecting onto Obama's character what they want to see. Sirota's tone was utterly dispassionate; he said he didn't begrudge Obama doing what it takes to win the election. For Sirota, the rise of Furman proves a central argument of his new book The Uprising--that real political and social change begins on the city and state level. Here Sirota and his activist audience were in perfect agreement, and it was the current local issues like the impact of the doubling in size of the Safeway that people were talking about. Even in this politically-engaged group, few people had heard of Jason Furman, and that fact should be another object lesson--this one for the media and pundits.
The urge to shake the Furman cup and read the tea leaves is irresistible, nevertheless. In the few days since the announcement of Furman as Obama's chief economic adviser, political and economic observers have suggested two different explanations. The first is a familiar narrative: in predictable Democratic mode, Barack Obama is tacking toward the political center so that he can win in November. I reject this thinking, because such a self-confident man as Obama would disdain such maneuvering -- at least for now. Sirota's observation is subtler reasoning, with which I partially agree. Yes indeed many Democrats have been projecting onto Obama what they want to see. But the ascendancy of an economist who has praised Wal-Mart and who finds merit in lowering the corporate tax rate does not necessarily mean that Obama is selling out the liberal progressive platforms he ran on during the race for the Democratic nomination.
Observers need to look not at the tea leaves but at the cup. Jason Furman's economic views tell us little about a theoretical Obama presidency's economic tilt because, for one thing, Obamanomics are still a work in progress. With the sometimes artless confidence of his generation, Furman admitted as much at least twice in his debut on the press conference call circuit Tuesday. In answer to a question from Slate's John Dickerson about "pay as you go," Furman said, "Over the course of the campaign these things do tend to get fleshed out -- further." Later he said, "In terms of tax credits, you'll hear more over time. . . He [Obama] will tell you at the same time how that proposal will be paid for."
If Obama's own thinking on economic issues is fluid, for us to draw conclusions is pointless. What Jason Furman does give us, however, is a preview of an Obama White House team. Furman is young (thirty-seven); he is smart without the baggage of egoism that intelligence sometimes entails; he is a team player; he is not hyper-partisan. This is the personality and demeanor that Obama likes to have around him. Many of the movers and shakers in an Obama presidency will be just like Jason Furman. At the press conference, these Furmanic traits were amply displayed. The Chicago Sun-Times' Lynn Sweet, who always gets straight to the heart of the matter, asked, "What does he [Obama] still need to know? Is this part of your portfolio, Mr. Furman?" Jason replied, "Sure. It is certainly a part of my portfolio -- to kick around different points of view, the way that he's told me he likes to figure economics and make decisions." Therefore, whatever Jason Furman's own economic views, he is comfortable (that inner confidence again) with the possibility, the likelihood, that a President Obama might not agree. The extraordinary facet of Furman's campaign press debut was his low-key nonpartisanship. At one point, he even made allowances for the current administration. "George Bush has had some bad luck with some aspects of the economy," Furman said. When was the last time you heard a member of a Democratic campaign team admit to anything like that?
The debut of Jason Furman says little about Obamanomics but much about Obama, who apparently is wise enough to know what most leaders in any sphere learn only the hard way -- that the top experts usually make poor advisers. Such people, the men and women preeminent in their fields, have earned reputations because they have dedicated themselves to a single line of thinking. It is his or her own point of view and not the larger world of viewpoints that a top name is used to putting forth. Therefore, it was a smart Obama move to reach below the level of a Rubin or Bernstein, a Summers or Galbraith.
Now Jason Furman is still a work in progress. Little has been made of the fact that Austan Goolsbee answered most of the press questions on the Tuesday conference call. At one point, when Jason faltered, Austan moved quickly in to rescue him. On Tuesday it was clear, however, that Jason Furman is more intelligent than Austan Goolsbee and that he will likely polish up more beautifully than Goolsbee has done. If the Obama policy team includes figures as promising as Furman, watching them step forward is going to be great political theater.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
One of Furman's mentors is Robert Rubin. Anything that plugs into Rubin and his knowledge is OK with me. The author and her friends may want to see purity in holding to a liberal course but the candidate needs to broaden his appeal and he is.
Am I the only person to think this article was a grandiose waste of bandwidth? Did this person actually say something in her article? Is she actually trying to have the reader believe she understands didly squat about economics?
Barack Obama has proven to be a master politician and doesn't need the adulation of a secret pocket recorder wielding pseudo journalist like Fowler!
President Obama will lead. He will make principled choices that are in the best interest of ALL the American people; yes, even that partly greedy 2% segment that has seen 8 years of unprecendented tax breaks. Obama has made it clear he does not intend to destroy the upper class, but rather regain a balance that benefits all.
Sometimes I think that the left needs to get over themselves. Obama is a pragmatist. He is principled and he is honest. Until I am given reasons not to, I trust him implicitly and explicitly.
As you should, IMO. The writer of the article is the same negative person that started the whole
b i t t e r - g a t e sh*t. Personally, I don't care to read any more of her negative articles.
FInd the trait to gather thoe that CAN express disagreement and help to define the WHY NOTS to be one the most critical NEEDS any good decision maker needs with the added quality that Obama comes aross as someone with intellect capable of comprhending and taking MUCH into consideration so that when making critical decisions, much has gone into the processing to come to the best deciision for the "occasion/need/mattering/etc" ...So different than these last bushlerized years...giving hope more and ore and more each and every day.
IA I think one of Obama's strength although at times it can be seen as a weakness is his ability to surround himself with diverse opinions. I think it takes a strong leader to welcome people who may have differing point of views that to me is a leader who is looking for solutions and not someone who is merely looking to push his ideological agenda through. When you surround your self with diversity its almost like you know what the arguments of the other side will be because they are in your administration. That is the basis for solid decision making. Only someone who lacks confidence want to immerse himself in YES men. Obama stated the criteria he is looking for when picking a team and not included in that criteria is someone who agrees with me. I think this part of his personality needs to be flushed out more. The American people need to see more how he plans on leading.
Carol
This is precisely what he has praised President Lincoln for doing, filling his advisors and cabinet positions not with people who thought just like him, but people with differing views, not just from his but from each other. The easiest way to get past partisanship, and even bipartisanship and into the magical land of non-partisanship is to get all those people working together to create policy that each one feels is the best that can be done for the American people.
I'm beginning to seriously wonder what part we will play in an Obama administration. His platform has been one of groundswell populism but I'm beginning to seriously wonder to what extent we will be able to change things ourselves in his administration.
The more I read about him the more certain I am that he would make a very apt and diligent president, and the less convinced I am that he is that oratory figure he's been projecting on the national stage.
It's different. Not worse, but different, certainly from the Messianic ephemeral quality of Obama. We'll see where this goes. He's got a good head on him screwed in tight though, no doubt about that.
Posted a reaction to your post many days ago and it never made it. Thought your particular questioning of the place "we" will have in changing things in Obama's administration was quite different, even strange, but think you may be on to something. Don't agree with your remark about Obama's populism because I have never heard him suggesting programs to end poverty, or achieve social justice. Everyone assumes those are his values but they have never made it as programs he has championed. But that is where the "advisers" are going to play in his administration and that is why he is totally into having various and sundry fill his policy buckets.
If having Jason as his economic adviser does not tell us anything about Obama's economic policy, what would? Advisers do not set policy, but it would be foolish to have your economic adviser counter to your views. Obama is making the traditional political move to the center. Jason is useful in doing this. Magical thinking that Jason was chosen because he is bright, young and confident seems a little thin. That would mean that there are no bright, young and confident economist that are a better fit with Sen. Obamas economic ideas. He either chose this young man because he agrees with him or he is politically moving to center ground. This article sounds like trying to explain away Jason as his pick.
"He either chose this young man because he agrees with him or he is politically moving to center ground"
Obama doesn't have to agree with Furman to chose him. He can chose him for the qualifications he brings to the table. But ultimately, it's Obama's views he's hired to make happen.
I find it a bit reductive to conclude that it's either agree, or moving center right.
The sad truth is that if he wants to get elected, he must at least appear to be more to the center. He has great support from the left, but that's not enough to get him a sure win in November. Folks who are worried need to just remember that he's still the MUCH better candidate, and that there are some things that he just has to do if he wants to have a real chance of getting elected. Politics isn't pretty, and not even Barack Obama can change that...certainly not overnight, and not if he doesn't get elected!
Obama is such a small thinker for a big talker. His first big tax revision is to go after the people who have worked there whole life to rise up and secure the great American Dream. A quarter million dollars is not a whole lot of money these days for a couple who have applied their intelligence and business skills to rise above the average life style. BUT when the Democrats in the Senate just last week pushed the envelop to bring a vote to hold the Oil Corporations accountable and pay their fair share while making gas and oil affofdable , OBAMA was not in Washington earning the paycheck he is already being paid by the American people. Obviously that wasn't important to Obama because he wouldn't be the center of attention. The All Talk who doesn't walk the walk is already leaving the needs of the American people on the back burner while he takes care of what is important to HIM. Preparing to write a book on how he rose up from humble beginnings to RUN for president. Hey Obama Wake Up ! If you want the job then start acting like a president , not someone trying to win American Idol!
Right on. A lot of people don't see that $200K in many cases is a couple working their guts out.
70% of job creation comes from small business; they will be impacted. The moeny that goes to employ people in a small business will go down the US gov't black hole. And it won't just be to social problems or green programs. I don't hear Obama talking about reducing the bloated DOD budget massively or even at all.
If I had to pay taxes as per Obama in 2007 I would not have been able to leave my job and start my own business, that is a fact. The money I made on stock options and wise stock picking would have been eaten up by taxes. I'm now generating revenue, paying taxes, and empoying people.
My ex company is on the skids. I would have been laid off and left with no springboard had I not acted and had the resources. My story is not unusual.
I don't like Obama for many reasons but his plan to rob from the upper-middle class is absurd.
The truly rich, those that make millions/year, will still have their tax shelters, golden parachutes, etc.
Americanworker,
I have no idea what world you live in where a quarter of a million dollars a year isn't a whole lot of money... Can I move there?
Who are the big thinkers and small talkers, Americanworker?
There were 6 senators who did not vote on the bill titled "A bill to provide energy price relief and hold oil companies and other entities accountable for their actions with regard to high energy prices, and for other purposes." Besides Senator John McCain (R), there was Obama (D). And then Byrd (D) and Clinton (D), Graham (R), and Kennedy (D)(of course). The vote was 51 (Yeas) to 43 (Nays). 60 votes were needed to pass. McCain and Obama would have canceled each other's vote. All 6 voting for the measure would have left the measure 3 votes short. All these senators know the vote before the roll is called.
The thing folks fail to figure out about Obama and his campaign, or they figure it out and choose to mislead by sharing partial facts, is that his campaign does not waste energy. They didn't waste energy during the primary and they're not going to waste energy during the General. If he needed to be there, he would have been--he does his job, but he does it with intelligence. Like McCain, he did not need to be there as the outcome was predetermined by the majority of the repubs (less 7 who crossed the aisle; 2 dems voted Nay).
Thank you!
That's what I try to tell folks when they wonder why he doesn't spend more time on a certain demographic, or why doesn't he focus on other things. Well, because he understands that while all things are priority - he knows what needs to be taken care of first and foremost. He is extremely thoughtful and pragmatic.
I trust implicitly that he knows what he's doing.
Why were the words "Obama's Radical Choice. . ." used as a headline? I noticed that is not the title of your post. Also, am a little confused with your first paragraph. It seems a little disconnected. "Barack Obama is an empty vessel", Sirota said--where is the context for that remark? What does it mean? And then you added that Sirota continued by saying "democratics are projecting onto Obama what they want to see." What does that mean? and then you say that Sirota says he doesn't begrudge Obama for doing anything he can to win. Then you switch topics to Sirota's book about local politics and grass root movements which are disconnected to the previous quotes. To clarify for readers, Sirota has stated many times that he sees Obama as an empty vessel, capable of incorporating social/progressive change or perhaps the opposite as Reagan did. Sirota believes Obama will incorporate the former. He has criticized various progressive groups for thinking that Obama is the social/progressive movement itself. But clarified by saying there were other movements that did not do that. Now that makes sense and it doesn't imply that Obama is devoid of of ideas ("empty vessel) who is being blindly followed because the lemmings are projecting their on desires onto him. When did you start attending "Democrats for America meetups"?
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=43ed5462-7b41-4bd1-98c0-c53cdcc3979e
This is absolutely topic A in Washington economic circles, whereas someone at the University of Chicago Business School--even someone as sharp and enlightened as Goolsbee--would probably be a little more insulated from it.*
P.S. Also, don't miss Paul Krugman's point: Furman was hired to be the director (i.e., broker, coordinator, explainer, synthesizer, etc.) of economic policy, not the chief policy-maker...
*Don't get me wrong--academic economists talk about this stuff quite a bit. And they tend to talk about it a lot more precisely than we do in Washington. But the volume and reach of the discussion at a place like Chicago--or even more policy-oriented places like Harvard--probably doesn't match what goes on in Washigton, if only because the typical economics department explores a much broader range of questions (even if the questions themselves are pretty narrow).
Update: If you're thinking through how these positions would translate into jobs in an Obama administration, I'd guess Furman would be the guy you'd install as head of the National Economic Council (the policy coordination body--i.e., what Gene Sperling did in Clinton's second term) and Goolsbee would be the guy you'd want to head the Council of Economic Advisers (the administration's in-house think-tank--i.e., what people like Joe Stiglitz did for Clinton).
--Noam Scheiber
Thank you!
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/06/13/why-the-jason-furman-hire-confuses-people.aspx
Why the Jason Furman Hire Confuses People
Apropos of John Judis's post on Jason Furman, and a lot of other commentary in that vein, it's not at all clear that Furman is to the right of the economists Obama has been relying on for advice. As Ezra Klein points out, he's certainly not to the right of Austan Goolsbee, who'd previously been (and basically still is) Obama's leading economic adviser. I think people get confused here because, as a member of the Clinton administration's neoliberal contingent, and thanks to his more recent work at the Robert Rubin-affiliated Hamilton Project, Furman is closely associated with the more centrist side of various Washington policy debates. On the other hand, because Goolsbee hasn't spent years toiling away as a Washington wonk, his worldview doesn't map as neatly onto the neoliberal/paleoliberal divide that burns so brightly here.
From the point of view of a concerned labor-liberal, though, someone with Furman's pedigree should actually be preferable to someone with Goolsbee's. As Jonathan Cohn noted yesterday, there aren't many Washington neoliberals who haven't had to re-think their worldview over the last seven years, in light of mounting evidence that prosperity isn't being distributed very evenly and that the economic risks facing middle-class people are escalating.
It's worth bearing in mind that Barack Obama has a history of seeking out advisors/experts whose views he *doesn't* share. Presumably, he knows what he thinks, but before making a decision likes to explore the thinking and assumptions that lead to the contrary conclusion. So, he'll look up someone who is well able to articulate the reasons for holding the opposite case, and go over it. If aat the end, he still thinks his initial position was correct, no doubt he'll be better able to articulate why.
In several interviews Obama mentioned how influenced he was by the Doris Kerns Goodwin book TEAM OF RIVALS. Obama won't be hiring the todies and "yes men" that his most liberal fans expect.ed Some think BO should be measured against JFK, but I think his model is Abe.
It makes sense that he would have some advisers that were for counterpoint thinking, but he would not place someone like this in this senior of a position.
No matter WHAT the story here in Huffington, when I hear the BITTER comments out on the campaign trail used against Barack Obama, I think of Mayhill and the travesty her unprofessional reporting represents.
Yes, Obama said what he said, so no one blames Mayhill for the comments. BUT, the proforma
for real, respectable reporters is to inform the person who will be quoted that there remarks are on tape and will be used and allow them to comment.
Mayhill did not give this courtesy to Barack Obama. And that major mistake, by intention, not by mistake, will, in many voters estimation, count Mayhill out as anyone to be taken seriously.
There are some things that cannot be undone.
Her stealth reporting may have undone Obama, and that, is NOT her job to do.
Everytime I see something she has written, I will represent the hundreds of voters with whom I collaborate to remind the larger public who Mayhill is and what she has done in the name of
careerism.
Is there no standards for employing a, so called, journalist?
You are in wonderland!. There was nothing "unprofessional" about her releasing a tape of a meeting to raise funds in San Fran. There were probably a few dozen persons in that room also recording what Obama said about the bitter whites who weren't supporting him. So there was plenty of validation for her particular tape and it is entirely within the realm of a journalist who was known to be a journalist who was known to have a tape recording of the party to publish that tape.
I think we have, and have been for a very long time, in the era of "gotcha" media. All the politicians, including Obama who I strongly support, know this. I'm fine with whatever he says coming to light, just like I'm fine with whatever McCain says coming to light. And if folks make up their minds because Obama says "bitter" and in context the comment was basically accurate, although even he admits he could have used better wording, and they ignore the incredibly stupid things McCain says that are actually substantive (like "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran"), then we will once again pay the price for an uneducated and ignorant electorate But our democracy also gives us the right to be stupid, so we can continue the current fiasco with relative ease, or we can analyze as much as we possibly can and make educated decisions. The choice is ours, but I think the media needs to report everything (within reason), so I have to disagree with the foundation of your statement. I mean when idiot journalist start talking about "the terrorist fist stab," I think even those super-right Kool-Aid drinkers have to wonder what these "news people" are smoking.
Yeh, to hell with truth!
Geez, I've read so many negative comments about you that I was pleasantly shocked to read your excellent essay.
Posted June 13, 2008 | 09:08 AM (EST)