Note: I'm the author of Barack Obama: This Improbable Quest, but I wasn't not part of the Obama campaign.
Larry Summers is a terrible choice for Secretary of the Treasury. He's a centrist economist who seems certain to embarrass the Obama administration with his authoritarian approach to leadership.
Rumors abound that Summers may be Obama's choice for Secretary of the Treasury. The Chicago Tribune reports that a choice may be made quickly, and Summers is one of the leading contenders. According to New York magazine, "the inside betting is on a Larry Summers encore. 'They're gonna want somebody who knows the building, knows the economy, has been confirmed before and been advising them on economics,' says the former Clinton aide. 'I'd be flabbergasted if they chose somebody else.'"
Summers would be a lousy selection for this position. Summers is an overrated economist with a conventional free market ideology. But worst of all, Summers has a terrible reputation as a leader after being one of the worst presidents of Harvard in its history. And Summers has shifted even more toward the right-wing in recent years. If Obama chooses Summers, it would send the worst possible message to his supporters: that he may be nothing more than a repeat of Bill Clinton, and that is rejecting the idea of change in one of the most important posts during this economic crisis.
So what's wrong with Summers? At Harvard, there was his sexist speech about women, his dismissive attacks on Cornel West, his right-wing shift toward intolerance, and his rudeness and arrogance that alienated nearly everyone around him. During the Clinton Administration, Summers was infamous for signing a memo urging more pollution in the Third World, as well as his legendary poor treatment of others. Summers' approach to leadership and his ideology run contrary to what Obama espoused during his campaign, and Obama would be making a serious mistake if he appoints Summers to a prominent position.
The sexism of Summers may be the most well-known aspect of him now. On January 14, 2005, Summers spoke at a Harvard Conference on Diversifying the Science & Engineering Workforce. Summers declared,
It does appear that on many, many different human attributes--height, weight, propensity for criminality, overall IQ, mathematical ability, scientific ability--there is relatively clear evidence that whatever the difference in means--which can be debated--there is a difference in the standard deviation, and variability of a male and a female population.
In other words, Summers was claiming that the inferior genetics of women regarding math was one major reason why so few women were found in science and engineering. By contrast, Summers displayed an extraordinary ignorance of how discrimination works in America:
...Gary Becker very powerfully pointed out in addressing racial discrimination many years ago. If it was really the case that everybody was discriminating, there would be very substantial opportunities for a limited number of people who were not prepared to discriminate to assemble remarkable departments of high quality people at relatively limited cost simply by the act of their not discriminating, because of what it would mean for the pool that was available.
Got that? Summers not only advanced the notion of female genetic inferiority, but he largely dismissed the possibility that discrimination is an explanation for the absence of women in these fields. In doing so, Summers cited and embraced the right-wing economics of Gary Becker, whose long-discredited dissertation in 1950s espoused the ridiculous theory that discrimination can't exist in the free market because rational employers would hire superior candidates overlooked by prejudiced employers. In reality, of course, the world doesn't work this way.
But that didn't stop Summers from concluding,
in the special case of science and engineering, there are issues of intrinsic aptitude, and particularly of the variability of aptitude, and that those considerations are reinforced by what are in fact lesser factors involving socialization and continuing discrimination.
In the question period, Summers brushed off a question about how female scientists are much more common in France and other countries: "My guess is that you'll find that in most of those places, the pressure to be high powered, to work eighty hours a week, is not the same as it is in the United States." So aside from calling women innately dumb, Summers was arguing that women are too lazy to be good scientists. Perhaps not surprisingly, "the number of women receiving tenure each year at Harvard had dropped precipitously since Summers became president -- down to 4 of the past 32 offers."
But it is a mistake to think that Summers was forced out of his job as president of Harvard because of his sexist remarks (and I believe he should be free to express these stupid, offensive ideas). In fact, Summers held on to his job long after he made his obnoxious remarks. The conservative board running Harvard was fully behind him. Harvard's Faculty of Arts and Sciences voted 218–185 to pass a motion of "no confidence" in Summers, but this didn't seriously threaten his job.
Summers' end at Harvard came a year later, when he purged William Kirby, the dean of Arts and Sciences, from his post, because Summers wanted to have only his loyalists in positions of power. This prompted the Faculty of Arts and Sciences planned to make another vote of no confidence in Summers on February 28, 2006. But this time, the conservatives at Harvard did not rise up to support Summers. Summers had alienated them completely. Summers announced his resignation on February 21, 2006, and received a substantial golden parachute.
As I note in my book, professor Stephen Thernstrom, who is one of the most prominent conservatives at Harvard, supported Summers but admitted that Summers is in the "top tenth of one percent of any scale measuring abrasiveness, arrogance, and overbearingness." When some of your best friends and ideological allies admit that you're not suited for an important job, it signifies something very important. Does Barack Obama really embrace "abrasiveness, arrogance, and overbearingness" as the model for his cabinet?
Harry R. Lewis had resigned as a dean in 2003 because of his disagreements with Summers, and was sharply critical of him: "For all his extraordinary talents, he just hasn't provided the kind of leadership to the university that people were prepared to follow." These words are important because Harry R. Lewis is a darling of the conservative movement in higher education. Yet Lewis concluded, "His misfortune arose from the impatience, harshness, thoughtlessness, and lack of candor."
The lack of candor was a reference to Summers' dealings with Andrei Shleifer, a close friend of Summers who cost Harvard a $26 million settlement with the U.S. government. Shleifer violated conflict-of-interest rules by making secret investments in Russia at the same time he was working for a Harvard group contracted by the U.S. Government to advise the Russian government. In 2004 a federal court found Shleifer liable for conspiracy to defraud the U.S. Government. While Shleifer was being investigated, Summers was pushing to have Shleifer promoted to a prominent chair at Harvard.
The problem isn't just that Summers' buddies are corrupt; the problem is that Summers deceived people about this issue, causing many of his conservative allies at Harvard to abandon him. Summers knew his buddy was investing in Russia, and knew that it might be illegal, and even warned him in 1996. But Summers, even though he was working for the Treasury Department, didn't nothing to stop Shleifer's criminal activities and insider dealing.
At Harvard, Summers was "a blunt and overbearing figure with an overt agenda of drastic change." When he was asked about the value of affirmative action by a faculty member, Summers responded, "The jury's out." When a female law professor at a meeting asked Summers a question he didn't like, he responded, "That's a stupid question." One professor "denounced Summers as 'a control freak' and mocked Summers's hierarchical 'Washington' style. 'He doesn't give a damn what anybody thinks.'"
Summers' life had taken a decidedly rightward turn, even to the level of dating Laura Ingraham in 2001. Summers took a further turn to the right after 9-11, when "Summers says that he felt called to speak up for patriotic values."
Summers also adopted far-right stands on Israel, and harshly denounced anyone who urged that universities disinvest from Israel were "anti-Semitic in their effect if not their intent." Accusing critics of Israel of anti-Semitism is the lowest form of intellectual sleaze from the far right.
Summers showed a disturbing disregard for academic freedom. In 2002, Summers was responsible for helping cancel a poetry reading on campus by Tom Paulin because Paulin had denounced Jewish settlers as "Nazis, racists" and suggested they should be "shot dead." Although Paulin apologized for the remarks, Summers consulted with the English Department and then praised its decision to cancel the reading. (The cancellation was denounced by Charles Fried, Summers' friend Alan Dershowitz, and Laurence Tribe, showing how both conservatives and liberals were appalled by the idea.)
Summers also pushed out famed professor Cornel West, meeting with him to criticize him for recording a rap album and being involved in supporting Bill Bradley's political campaign. A president of a university has no business ordering a professor (or anyone else) to stop participating in political campaigns. It is a clear violation of academic freedom to do so. West called Summers both "uninformed" and "an unprincipled power player" in describing what happened in his book Democracy Matters (2004). If nothing else, Obama should ask West if Summers has the leadership skills for any major post in the next administration.
Summers' reign as president of Harvard was a terrible failure. How bad was Summers? The Harvard Corporation accepted his resignation offer even though it cost them hundreds of millions of dollars in donations from angry conservative alumni who loved Summers.
But Summers' career as an economist hasn't been much better. Summers is an ardent advocate of uncontrolled free trade and globalization. Summers' first job was in 1981, when he worked as assistant to Martin Feldstein, the head of Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers. After a stint at Harvard, Summers went to the World Bank. Back in 1991, Summers was the chief economist of the World Bank, when it was continuing to pursue disastrous policies that did little to help the poor. Summers doesn't deserve all the blame for the failings of the World Bank, but he was never part of any solutions or serious reforms.
While at the World Bank, Summers signed a memo that declared: "Just between you and me, shouldn't the World Bank be encouraging MORE migration of the dirty industries to the LDCs [Least Developed Countries]?" The memo noted, "I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that."
The memo was written by an underling, and Summers claims that he "co-signed it to stimulate internal debate" (it's funny how many disgusting theories Summers likes to promote in the name of "debate"). It's not even clear how closely Summers read his memo and its claim that "underpopulated countries in Africa are vastly underpolluted."
One of the problems with the defenders of Summers who suggest that this was meant as satire is the fact that Summers' economic ideology doesn't seem to be much different from this memo. Summers' free market economic logic does seem to support that point of view, even if he normally has the political skill not to say so openly.
Back in 1993, Al Gore reportedly prevented Summers from becoming chair of the the Council of Economic Advisers. Instead, Summers was named undersecretary of the treasury for international affairs. At the Treasury Department, Summers was a protege of the free market advocate Robert Rubin, and followed him in the role of Secretary of the Treasury from 1999-2001. At the Treasury, "Summers had earned a reputation as a politically careless upstart."
When Summers was being hired by Harvard, "Summers's temperament was troubling to some members of the corporation. The word from Washington was that he could be peremptory, condescending, impatient with lesser mortals. He had, as Robert Rubin, Summers's mentor and predecessor as treasury secretary, delicately put it, 'a rough-edges issue.'" As Secretary of the Treasury during a time with few crises, Summers had few dramatic events to challenge him.
As Richard Bradley noted, "Though deferential to his superiors, Summers could be a boss from hell. 'If you're in a meeting, whatever you say, he will make you feel like you're an idiot,' says one Treasury aide who worked for both Summers and Rubin." Paul Gigot once wrote, "Larry Summers is to humility what Madonna is to chastity."
Recently, Summers called for Paulsen to be given unchecked authority over the $700 billion bailout plan: "There's more risk in having too little flexibility than there is risk that they will have too much authority."
That indicates that Summers would resist any efforts to monitor, scrutinize, and criticize his control over the bailout if he is the Treasury Secretary. That promises to be a disaster. There's already far too little transparency and monitoring in the bailout plan, and Summers wants no one to be looking over the shoulder of Paulsen or anyone else.
There's also a danger of a conflict of interest, since Summers is a part-time managing director of the hedge fund D. E. Shaw & Co. Will he try to help his friends by continuing to bail out businesses? He also refuses to answer questions about the financial advice he has been giving Shaw.
I don't want anyone to think that I hate Larry Summers and regard him as a horrible person. He's a well-respected economist, seems to be regarded as a good teacher, and he did undertake some valuable actions at Harvard (such as increasing financial aid for the poor and trying to emphasize undergraduate teaching). I don't have a problem with Summers being an advisor to Obama, and he's not a free market ideologue on the scale of the Republicans.
A 2007 New York Times profile of Summers noted that "Clinton ended up embracing the centrist, business-friendly ideas of Summers and his mentor, Robert Rubin." But it added that now Summers "sounds, strangely enough, a little like Bob Reich." It's good if Summers is rethinking some of his free market faith. But why do we need him if we can get Reich himself, or someone else who was right all along?
However, there are also good reasons to doubt that Summers' conversion is real. Summers played a central role in "negotiations over China's entry into the World Trade Organization," which has been a disaster in terms of protecting human rights, the environment, and labor rights. And Summers doesn't seem to have changed his views much at all.
Back in April 2008, Summers was predicting: "There is a reasonable chance that from a financial market, Wall Street perspective, the worst has passed." That doesn't sound like a smart economic prognosticator.
Just a few months ago, Summers declared: "Alan Greenspan had a tremendous record as Fed chairman."
And in April 2008, Summers proclaimed, "Any honest Democrat will admit that we are now all Friedmanites."
Larry Summers may be a Friedmanite, but I'm not. No one appointed by Obama to this essential position should be announcing how much he agrees with Milton Friedman, the intellectual godfather of the current economic disaster. And an endorsement from Henry Kissinger ("Henry Kissinger has said that Summers should be given a permanent White House job, a sort of fixer of flabby policy ideas") scares the hell out of me.
Still, I find myself agreeing with Kissinger (shudder!) on this point. I think Summers should be an adviser to Obama, somebody who challenges old ideas (hopefully his own) and tries to come up with new ones. But that doesn't mean he should be running the show. Everyone agrees that he lacks the temperament. What he also lacks are genuinely new ideas. And that may be the most disturbing thing of all. We don't need the recycled, pro-business, free-market-is-god ideas of the Clinton Administration in a time of economic crisis. We need change, not more of the same. And Larry Summers is a lot more of the same.
At his best, Summers is a gaffe machine who actually exceeds Joe Biden's capacity to shove his foot down his larynx. At his worst, he's a conservative, domineering leader who alienates almost all of the people he works with. In neither case is he a good choice for the Treasury Department or any other major position.
Crossposted at ObamaPolitics.