It seems the Barack Obama campaign is distancing itself from Austan Goolsbee, who is indeed a first-rate economist. Samantha Powers, who wrote a highly intelligent and heart-rending book on genocide, was dismissed last week for speaking her mind about Hillary Clinton. Of course no one doubts that such actions may be necessary, given that a Presidency can function only with some amount of message discipline. But think about the economics of message discipline. How many people are receiving the message? 300 million, plus some number abroad as well. What kind of messages do these people desire? What must be done to make these messages understandable and then to show that the promise behind the message has been met? Which kinds of advisors will flourish best in a "message consistency" environment? Independent and critical minds, able and willing to speak the truth to power?
Here is my question for the left-wing bloggers: How good would The Wire be, if it had to appeal to 300 million plus viewers? While it is obvious that politics is a form of mass culture, this point is not made with sufficient frequency for my taste.
Addendum: Arnold Kling comments. And Matt Yglesias responds.
That is both disturbing and disappointing. I don’t particularly agree with what seems to be Goolsbee’s choice of economic policy tradeoffs, but at least he understands what those tradeoffs are.
Essentially Obama is discarding the thing I find most appealing about him, namely that he is at least willing to listen to an actual PhD economist, unlike his competition. Now he is just another bum who doesn’t understand the seen and the unseen.
The difference between good politicians and bad politicians is not how much freedom they give their staff to talk to the public, but how much freedom they give their staff to talk amongst themselves and with the politician. Intelligent people get in trouble when their words suddenly acquire power where previously they had only influence. If they can’t adjust, they must return to being merely influential.
I am wrestling with this question just now (or always, where the title of my blog is concerned
. If public officials and pronouncements are to deliver pablum designed for the lowest common denominator, then they deliver little value. The most-useful debates are those where radically-opposed opinions collide and engage. (Some people consider opinion itself to be radical, but I am trying to lay down a general rule that includes the “minor deviation” opinions we see in politics.) Everyone can choose what to take from these transactions. Although the policies that result will probably be in the middle, they will take radical opinions into account (a good thing per se, if you’ve ever just wanted to be heard!)
In a culture of status quo where “debate” consists of nothing, people stop paying attention. When they do, the “Deep State” takes over and makes policy to suit itself. In a real democracy, we need real debate and opinion, and we seem to have lost a little more today…
Goolsbee’s mistake was to suggest that Obama’s real policy choices might be different from his rhetoric. Obama has sold himself as a man of absolute integrity, and can’t afford to have his associates publicly question that.
For me to evaluate this at all, you’d have to explain “back channel” diplomatic communications to me (as they really exist), and tell me if Goolsbee did them normally (or skillfully) or naively.
Gotta love MostlyAPragmatist, that person hasn’t done the homework in the Goolsbee incident but wants you do your work before you say something about it. Perfect example of many (not all) Obama supporters. If Obama made the decision, it must be right. How dare you question the authority of Obama?
Being pro-free trade has simply gone the way of being irreligious; it’s intellectually reasonable but it’s clear that it loses far more votes than it gains. I’m guessing that the leak from Harper’s official was pure bad news for Obama.
However the recruitment to and resignation from the campaign of Samantha Power [sic] is much more interesting. She was *always* likely to be a loose cannon, and an extremely high profile one at that. But having her on board was a very effective signal to young progressives that Obama shared their views, in contrast with Clinton’s hawkishness, and they have repaid that amply. Even now, it’s unclear if she’s been permanently let go or would join his administration. This “creative ambiguity”, leaves everyone free to believe the best of Obama, one of his greatest skills.
I’m sure Plato would have agreed with you, Prof. Cowen.
This goes along with my idea that maybe that in an advanced democracy, like our government has become, the most corrupt politicians may be the best electable option. E.G. Bill Clinton ran against free trade and NAFTA but when he governed he did not want to do anything that might cause economic damage so he was very free trade. He deftly also avoided addressing global warming and he waited until just before he left office to sign other potential damaging environmental legislation knowing the Bush would have to get rid of it.
Richard Vedder and some others looked objective at how the country did under various administrations and it came out that the country did best while Warren G. Harding was president. A corrupt president can talk tough and still avoid wars by secretly dealing with thugs. He can placate all kinds of protectionists with talk but act only symbolically. If congress is bought by business we can avoid certain economically crippling legislation for the price of some corporate welfare.
So here’s to hoping the candidates are corrupt enough that they are just lying when attacking free trade and NAFTA. I am pretty confident of this in regards to Hillary, she is most likely following Bill’s example but Obama too seems less that genuine in regards to NAFTA.
And may the most corrupt candidate win.
It isn’t the consistency of the message that is the problem per se its that the message itself is dependent on which groups form the governing coalition. Arguing about the limitations of mass appeal will only take you so far, because by far the most significant factor is ‘who in my coalition can bring the votes, and what do they want to hear’. The end result is the same, that intelligent consulting is expendable but ‘reframing’ specialists are not.
If The Wire had to appeal to 300 million viewers, they would have to get rid of a lot of black people on the show.
Sadly, this means the penny will still only be worth 1 cent rather than 5 at the end of an Obama administration.
租車
Is it realistic?
The war is so terrible. Let’s pray for peach together
Comments on this entry are closed.