As Citigroup collapses atop Robert Rubin's reputation, one of the side-effects has been to embolden critics of Rubin's successors and allies, many of whom are now well-embedded in Obama administration. Larry Summers, Timothy Geithner, Peter Orszag, Jason Furman, and others are pretty tightly associated with Rubin. For most of them, he was their patron, the figure whose favor transformed them from talented civil servants into the sort of people who get cabinet-level positions. For critics of so-called Rubinomics, like my beloved boss BK, watching Rubin's proteges step into every major economic staffing position in the new administration has been concerning. Watching them do so as Goldman-Sachs, which Rubin once led, and Citigroup, which Rubin recently advised, get buffeted by the subprime collapse is almost perverse.But it's worth separating the two critiques of Robert Rubin. There's the traditional ideological critique, which is that Rubin prioritized deficit reduction over social investment, constraining Clinton's liberal instincts and robbing the working class of the full benefits of his presidency. Then there's the class solidarity critique, which was best made by Kuttner in his article Friendly Takeover. This argues that Rubin, the former chairman of Goldman-Sachs, was a Wall Street guy with a Wall Street perspective and Wall Street sympathies who governed in a way very friendly to Wall Street. This meant deregulation, it meant blocking new regulation that would have contained derivatives, it meant bailing out bad Wall Street bets, and so forth.But Rubin's successors aren't Wall Street guys. They're bureaucrats and academics. All of them served under Rubin in government, not at Goldman-Sachs. Summers, Geithner, Orszag, and Furman have little in the way of a Wall Street background. Geithner, in fact, has been Wall Street's main regulator for the last couple of years. So insofar as one of Rubin's problems was that he was viscerally sympathetic to his former colleagues and overly influenced by their perspective, that's not actually a trait that's likely to afflict his successors. The ideological stuff is a different issue, though for the time being, there seems to be incredible unity on the left that deficits should be ignored, investment is essential, and health reform is necessary. WHAT MAKES A RUBINITE?
As Citigroup collapses atop Robert Rubin's reputation, one of the side-effects has been to embolden critics of Rubin's successors and allies, many of whom are now well-embedded in Obama administration. Larry Summers, Timothy Geithner, Peter Orszag, Jason Furman, and others are pretty tightly associated with Rubin. For most of them, he was their patron, the figure whose favor transformed them from talented civil servants into the sort of people who get cabinet-level positions. For critics of so-called Rubinomics, like my beloved boss BK, watching Rubin's proteges step into every major economic staffing position in the new administration has been concerning. Watching them do so as Goldman-Sachs, which Rubin once led, and Citigroup, which Rubin recently advised, get buffeted by the subprime collapse is almost perverse.But it's worth separating the two critiques of Robert Rubin. There's the traditional ideological critique, which is that Rubin prioritized deficit reduction over social investment, constraining Clinton's liberal instincts and robbing the working class of the full benefits of his presidency. Then there's the class solidarity critique, which was best made by Kuttner in his article Friendly Takeover. This argues that Rubin, the former chairman of Goldman-Sachs, was a Wall Street guy with a Wall Street perspective and Wall Street sympathies who governed in a way very friendly to Wall Street. This meant deregulation, it meant blocking new regulation that would have contained derivatives, it meant bailing out bad Wall Street bets, and so forth.But Rubin's successors aren't Wall Street guys. They're bureaucrats and academics. All of them served under Rubin in government, not at Goldman-Sachs. Summers, Geithner, Orszag, and Furman have little in the way of a Wall Street background. Geithner, in fact, has been Wall Street's main regulator for the last couple of years. So insofar as one of Rubin's problems was that he was viscerally sympathetic to his former colleagues and overly influenced by their perspective, that's not actually a trait that's likely to afflict his successors. The ideological stuff is a different issue, though for the time being, there seems to be incredible unity on the left that deficits should be ignored, investment is essential, and health reform is necessary. 
