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.
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.
Carol
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.
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 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).
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.
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
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.
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?
that reflects a 'political' ideology and agenda RATHER THAN A COMMITMENT TO AMERICA'S FUTURE AND AMERICA'S MOST VULNERABLE CITIZENS.....empty suit????...but his POCKETS ARE FULL FROM HIS POLITICAL 'BUDDIES' WHO SEE THEIR MEAL TICKET....
http://my.barackobama.com/
McCain's spent quite a bit of time on both sides of plenty issues from the Bush cuts to women's reproductive rights and more.
John's the Class-A panderer.