Barack Obama’s economics appointees have been great so far. Indeed, from my viewpoint, they represent the very best of the realistic possibilities. The triumvirate of Geithner, Summers and Romer are all qualified, smart, have an excellent grasp of the issues and most significantly, none of them subscribe to the kind of protectionist, far-left ideology that Obama has espoused in his campaign rhetoric.
Not surprisingly, these ‘centrist’ tendencies are not pleasing the far left. Here’s Chris Hayes writing in the Nation:
Not a single, solitary, actual dyed-in-the-wool progressive has, as far as I can tell, even been mentioned for a position in the new administration. Not one. Remember this is the movement that was right about Iraq, right about wage stagnation and inequality, right about financial deregulation, right about global warming and right about health care. And I don’t just mean in that in a sectarian way. I mean to say that the emerging establishment consensus on all of these issues came from the left. There’s tons of things the left is right about that aren’t even close to mainstream (taking a hatchet to the national security state and ending the prison industrial complex to name just two), but hopefully we’re moving there.
Hi…I was wondering if you think the bailout classifies as protectionist
Yes, I do, though regarding the original financial bailout, I have somewhat mixed feelings. As for any future auto-bailout, I think it would be a really bad idea.
When I used the word protectionist in the post, I was primarily using it to refer to the anti-NAFTA and related stances that Obama held during the primaries.
[...] far, all of Obama’s actions — from his excellent economic appointees to the current package — show that he is more a pragmatist than a far-left idealogue. Of [...]