I've been remiss in not linking to Bob Kuttner's aggressive takedown of Robert Rubin in the most recent issue of The American Prospect. As Kuttner shows, Rubin's influence as an economic wise-man in the Democratic Party is utterly unmatched, and so his decisions go virtually unquestioned, even as many of them seem heavily, and possibly worryingly, influenced by his time on Wall Street and his current role as a chair of Citigroup. That isn't to allege corruption on Rubin's part, but a possible myopia, or poverty of experience. And that would be fine too, were his word not taken with such weight. But it is, in part because high commerce, inexplicably, is not considered an interest group or narrowing influence in the way most all other backrounds are. As Kuttner writes:
A blind spot in the usual story of the Democratic party's capture by "interest groups" is the failure to notice Wall Street as an interest group. In the usual media account, the obstacles to the party's modernization are such groups as abortion-rights advocates, blacks, gays, and unions. Candidates can score points with pundits for showing independence by taking on, say, the unions on school vouchers, or African Americans over inflammatory rhetoric (Sister Souljah), or civil libertarians over the death penalty (then-Governor Clinton's refusal to spare Ricky Ray Rector).
Such actions are said to show political courage by resisting "politically correct" politics and entrenched interest groups. But taking on the most powerful Democratic Party interest group of them all -- Wall Street -- is viewed as a sign of recklessness, unsoundness, demagoguery, and political suicide. A mark of Wall Street's ubiquitous power in defining the limits of the politically thinkable is that its power is hardly noticed. The personification of this power is Robert Rubin.
It's weird. In any case, read the whole thing for a worthwhile contrarian take on Rubin. The guy is good, but he's not godlike, and he's inescapably a product of his profession and social circle. Were there more attention to other economic voices in the party, none of this would be an issue. But as Kuttner reports, "when the Democrats took back the House in 2006, incoming Speaker Nancy Pelosi advised the new Democratic caucus that its first two briefings would include one on defense, with three experts of differing views. On the economy, Robert Rubin would be appearing, solo." Maybe it's time he got some company.
