It’s the curse of the modern presidency. Our chief executives need to make an active, aggressive effort to reach beyond their immediate circle of advisers, to demand fresh thinking and avoid the sycophancy that comes with the Oval Office. Otherwise, they’ll only hear what they want to hear — or what their aides tell them. To judge from "War of Necessity, War of Choice," Richard N. Haass’s new book on presidential decision-making with regard to Iraq, George W. Bush lived in a bubble, partly of his own making, that walled off creative dissent or even, in some cases, common sense.
Mindful of his predecessor, Barack Obama seems to be trying harder to make sure he hears all sides. On the night of April 27, for instance, the president invited to the White House some of his administration’s sharpest critics on the economy, including New York Times columnist Paul Krugman and Columbia University economist Joseph Stiglitz. Over a roast-beef dinner, Obama listened and questioned while Krugman and Stiglitz, both Nobel Prize winners, pushed for more aggressive government intervention in the banking system…
This tendency to report the news as if the real story is in the background has intensified during the Bush Administration for a really good reason. An example that I tried to dissect recently was the campaign for the Iraq War launched on September 8, 2002 with a leak to the New York Times, an appearance on Meet the Press by Dick Cheney, and Condi Rice’s guesting on CNN – all scripted and coordinated, even down to some of the exact same lines ["mushroom shaped cloud"]. The basic approach to the news then was paranoid, "What do they really mean?" "What are they trying to get us to think?"
In this case, Obama invited Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz over for dinner. They are Nobel Laureate Economists who have been of a single tongue in criticizing Obama’s Stimulus/Bank Bail-out Plan as too light. I suggest the following motive for their being asked to come for a talk at the White House. Obama wanted to know what they thought. Pretty radical thinking, trying to take him straight. Straight? What’s such a person doing in Washington? He certainly doesn’t need to prove that he’s not Bush, or even Bush-like. Any fool can see that. He said he was going to seek broad opinions during his campaign. It’s hard to imagine that he feels totally solid about the bail-out himself, having passed it with a wall of opposition from the other side of the aisle. Maybe he really wants to know why they’re worried…
My only question is: why didn’t he involve them sooner? And why did the think-tank-type hearing on health care reform not include a single person who advocates a single payer plan?
I’m still a believer and give him slack, because he can’t do everything and do it all perfectly all at the same time. Listening later is better than not listening at all.
I do wonder if he now finds himself thinking: I should have listened to these guys sooner. Maybe their ideas would have been better than the Summers-clone crowd.
I’m reading Jeffrey Toobin’s new book “The Nine” Inside The Secret World of the Supreme Court. According to the author, The now Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was responsible for W’s lawyers going to the Supreme Court to stop the recount in 2000. Bush’s lawyers didn’t think the justices would get involved. John Roberts thad been Rehnquist’s law clerk and after leaving had argued cases before the Court and he said to James Baker that he thought they would take the case, the rest is history. Bush actually tried to seat Roberts on the D.C. Circuit but the Senate didn’t act on his nomination. Roberts also worked on Bush versus Gore in 2000.