A few years ago, it would probably have seemed unlikely that in the event of a massive financial crisis befalling the country, left wing critics of a generally liberal Democratic president would rally around a former research director of the IMF. The IMF itself didn't really have a good reputation in left wing circles. It's not where you draft liberal talent. Indeed, the likelier outcome would have been its opposite: You could have imagined liberals championing Joseph Stiglitz, who became something of a hero by criticizing the IMF. But Stiglitz's Nation cover story outlining "a better bank bailout" hasn't received half the rapturous reception (including from this blog) that's accrued to Simon Johnson's upcoming article in The Atlantic. Indeed, Simon Johnson's rapid emergence as a key liberal voice on the financial crisis has been a bit of an unexpected phenomenon. Dani Rodrik, a Harvard economist who long battled the IMF's austerity policies, is certainly confused. "I find it astonishing that Simon would present the IMF as the voice of wisdom on these matters," he writes. "The same IMF which until recently advocated capital-account liberalization for some of the poorest countries in the world and which was totally tone deaf when it came to the cost of fiscal stringency in countries going through similar upheavals." To be fair, Johnson has emphasized the IMF's experience with political economy more than their austerity packages. His popularity is in part due to the fact that he's an impeccably credentialed neoliberal calling for nationalization and in part due to the fact that he's an impeccably credentialed neoliberal arguing that the problem is partly due to concentrations of political power. (It's also in part due to the fact that he's a fantastic -- and, unlike Stiglitz, frequent -- blogger and communicator.) That liberals traditionally mistrust the IMF has, in practice, made Johnson more valuable to them. A lot of folks are laundering their ideas through his establishment credibility. That said, Johnson will remain prominent next year, too. And there may be a lot in his vision for how to suck the eventual inflationary pressures from the economy that liberals haven't noticed and won't find congenial. This is one of those quickie marriages where everyone seems wonderfully happy and well-suited even as you wonder how much they really know about one another, and how well they'll get along in a few years. THE CURIOUS CASE OF SIMON JOHNSON.
A few years ago, it would probably have seemed unlikely that in the event of a massive financial crisis befalling the country, left wing critics of a generally liberal Democratic president would rally around a former research director of the IMF. The IMF itself didn't really have a good reputation in left wing circles. It's not where you draft liberal talent. Indeed, the likelier outcome would have been its opposite: You could have imagined liberals championing Joseph Stiglitz, who became something of a hero by criticizing the IMF. But Stiglitz's Nation cover story outlining "a better bank bailout" hasn't received half the rapturous reception (including from this blog) that's accrued to Simon Johnson's upcoming article in The Atlantic. Indeed, Simon Johnson's rapid emergence as a key liberal voice on the financial crisis has been a bit of an unexpected phenomenon. Dani Rodrik, a Harvard economist who long battled the IMF's austerity policies, is certainly confused. "I find it astonishing that Simon would present the IMF as the voice of wisdom on these matters," he writes. "The same IMF which until recently advocated capital-account liberalization for some of the poorest countries in the world and which was totally tone deaf when it came to the cost of fiscal stringency in countries going through similar upheavals." To be fair, Johnson has emphasized the IMF's experience with political economy more than their austerity packages. His popularity is in part due to the fact that he's an impeccably credentialed neoliberal calling for nationalization and in part due to the fact that he's an impeccably credentialed neoliberal arguing that the problem is partly due to concentrations of political power. (It's also in part due to the fact that he's a fantastic -- and, unlike Stiglitz, frequent -- blogger and communicator.) That liberals traditionally mistrust the IMF has, in practice, made Johnson more valuable to them. A lot of folks are laundering their ideas through his establishment credibility. That said, Johnson will remain prominent next year, too. And there may be a lot in his vision for how to suck the eventual inflationary pressures from the economy that liberals haven't noticed and won't find congenial. This is one of those quickie marriages where everyone seems wonderfully happy and well-suited even as you wonder how much they really know about one another, and how well they'll get along in a few years. 
