Paul Sancya/AP Photo
Biden tours the North American International Auto Show in Detroit, January 2017.
If you read the portions of Biden’s “Build Back Better” platform on industry, technology, infrastructure, and green transition, they are actually terrific. What remains to be seen is just how (and if) they will be carried out.
My worry is that, as Team Biden completes the chess game of filling out the remaining cabinet and senior White House staff slots, these crucial goals will get lost in the shuffle. We are talking about a large-scale industrial policy to re-shore supply chains, develop the next generation of green technology, and connect those dots to a massive jobs and infrastructure program. Much of this depends on the makeup of Congress, of course, but some could get done through administrative and regulatory action, and the authority given to the executive branch over trade policy.
These goals involve several cabinet departments, and cry out for coordination at the highest level. The Defense Department is a major player because of its huge procurement budget and concern for the defense industrial base. The Commerce Department, with its involvement in technology and in exports, could play a prime role. Likewise the Department of Energy, through Arpa-E and other tacit industrial policies. And of course the office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) is key because a constructive form of economic nationalism will require major changes in trade priorities.
Biden is well positioned for this challenge. The head of his National Economic Council, Brian Deese, and U.S. Trade Rep, Katherine Tai are both friendly to this agenda. But the rest of the dance card needs to be filled in, and several key jobs remain to be named.
The last two Democratic presidents talked a good game on reclaiming U.S. industry, but when push came to shove they gave priority to trade deals orchestrated by Tech, Finance, and Pharma, and the outflow of decent jobs just increased.
Here are two suggestions. First, the Biden Administration should avoid the all too typical habit of Democratic presidents of using the commerce secretary post to either bring in a token Republican, reward a major campaign donor, or find a symbolic big business leader looking for a career-capper job.
The next commerce secretary should be someone serious and knowledgeable about reviving American industry. This also has crucial political ramifications, since small cities and metro areas in the heartland broke heavily for Trump in two straight elections, because they’ve lost industry, jobs, and hope.
A current or recent Midwestern progressive governor would be a good pick. One who comes to mind is former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm.
My sources say Granholm is a serious contender for another cabinet job—energy secretary. But she could be a better pick for Commerce.
Someone who has been mentioned for Commerce is Meg Whitman, a Republican billionaire tech executive. Whitman single-handedly illustrates every category of whom not to appoint.
Rhode Island governor and former venture capitalist Gina Raimondo, who was passed up for HHS secretary because of progressive pushback, has also been proposed for Commerce. Let’s hope Biden can do better.
Assuming Biden can get the Commerce job right, what’s missing is the White House machinery. Under the usual setup, industrial policy is everybody’s job and nobody’s.
Barack Obama, in a token gesture to industrial planning, named steelworker financial advisor Ron Bloom as counselor to the president for manufacturing policy. But Bloom was given a small basement office, no staff, and no line authority to coordinate among departments. Since industrial policy was still a dirty word among Obama’s market-obsessed economists, Bloom was forbidden to even use the term.
It would be smart to appoint a senior person with the full backing of the president and lodge that person at the National Economic Council. They should be given the authority to coordinate how different departments as well as presidential actions serve the common goal of reviving domestic industry, and making the four-way connection between technology policy, industry, transition to renewables, and job-intensive infrastructure.
Executive authority is crucial until we get legislation, because of federal-procurement power. For instance, the government could accelerate the domestic development of utility-scale batteries by committing to buy them in large quantities.
People with the knowledge of these several realms and the political savvy to broker among departments and keep the confidence of the boss do not exactly grow on trees. But Team Biden needs to find one.
Three who come to mind are:
Gene Sperling. A veteran of the more progressive wings of both the Clinton and Obama administrations, Sperling did not get one of the top Biden jobs. But Sperling, who was a major participant in devising Build Back Better, would be well suited to helping to carry it out.
Mike Wessel. A widely respected policy expert at the juncture of industry and trade policy, Wessel was runner-up for U.S. Trade Rep. He’s too senior for one of the USTR deputy jobs, but too talented not to be in the mix. Wessel is famous for getting along with all players.
Simon Johnson. An MIT economist and former chief economist for the International Monetary Fund, Johnson has worked closely with the Biden campaign and is being touted for one of the sub-cabinet posts at Treasury. But he knows the connections between industry, finance, and trade, and could also do the industry-coordinator job well.
The last two Democratic presidents talked a good game on reclaiming U.S. industry, but when push came to shove they gave priority to trade deals orchestrated by Tech, Finance, and Pharma, and the outflow of decent jobs just increased.
Biden needs to build back better, and he needs to staff up accordingly.
