Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

#2 by a landslide.

Re: #2.. isn't Ford the main candidate for "dumber than Dubya" in our recent Presidential history? Or am I misinformed?

Couldn't you add this explaination:

4. The secret agenda. These folks came into office expecting to accomplish several things that they were not specifically elected to do. This is their big opportunity ... why let policy get in the way.

You might add 3a. as well: tiredness. Cheney and Rumsfeld are old and tired; fighting to get all points of view aired, especially with this President, is probably very hard work. Why kill yourself when your view is the one being heard?

Brad, think of how a random bacterial strain exists in your body:

(1) With a healthy immune system.

(2) With a largely destroyed immune system.

Big difference.

It seems to me that Cheney and Rumsfeld have different jobs this time around. It is not their job to see that the president get all the advice from other sources. That is the chief of staff's job. It is their job to push their perspective.

I see Justin's comment. In my mind, I see a nail, and a hammer, and the hammer is coming down and hitting the nail on top of its head.

#3 for Cheney. He had his first ( of 5?)
heart attacks when he was 38, and
has had several bypass operations.
His cognitive functioning is probably seriously impaired.

What makes you think those things aren't happening? That meeting you quoted a few days ago certainly had plenty of points of view - if anything, too many cooks, not too few. O'Neill claims that he wasn't listened to, but you laid out yesterday why - he hadn't done his homework.

Maybe what happened was O'Neill was listened to, and his advice determined to be, in the words of staff dealing with VP Rockefeller's proposals, totally inconsistent with the basic policy of the Bush administration. If anyone in that administration is susceptible to CEO head, it is the hectomillionaire O'Neill. "F*ck you" money tends to give people this queer feeling they know better than the people around them. I'm sure everyone in any administration thinks they are being ignored at one time or another. (I'm sure there are days BUSH thinks he's being ignored by his administration.)

The alternative is the original Democratic "thesis" regarding this presidency. Everything Cheney and Rumsfeld describe is happening, but the informed decision maker is Cheney, not Bush. Bush is the figurehead. Bush is a heartbeat away from the presidency and all that.

These three choices are not mutually exclusive.

In fact the most likely is equal proportions of all three.

On a not completely unrelated note:
That Cheney was not able to find an equally qualified VP candidate for Bush other than himself, completely removes any desire for me to vote Republican at the national level for the next generation...

I, too, see Justin's point. I just don't like it. If a young lion, who had never had the responsibility of making sure the president was hearing the full range of views held the vice presidency or headed the war ministry, I would have a great deal more tolerance for parochialism. And certainly, the job of the VP has to be, to some extent, similar to that of the chief of staff, so even a young lion in that job would risk failing if he spent all his time trying to sway the president to his own views. Maybe what we are missing is that, in past presidencies, the president knew what went into a good chief of staff. If called upon to be an honest broker, Cheney is up to the task. Fail to set that standard, and he is off serving his own constituents and fostering his own crank notions, same as anybody else. Doesn't speak very highly of Cheney (one of those people who is there to offer sage advice to a young, inexperienced president, remember?), or of Bush.

By the way, let's all stare really hard at Brad and think for a minute. He has been to Washington, made policy, rubbed elbows with influenctial people. He has spent a lot of time thinking about issues when he could have played golf or swung from the chandelier. Now, he is spending time sharpening up his knowledge of what it takes to make a presidential administration, or at least its economic policy leaders, successful. Hmmm....

The other answer is: James Buchanan. "Good" policy is that which benefits the politician/bureaucrat, not the country.

Charles's #4 is what some of the critics of Bush43 have been saying for a long time. And if his thesis is right, what empirical implications would it generate? Try yes man behavior, which seems to be what some of Bush's aids are exhibiting. And try writing opeds that are designed for spin even to the point of contradicting what one has taught one's students at Columbia, Harvard, etc. To be perfectly fair, I do not know why people write opeds that contradict what they have taught students. After all, resignations are another alternative. But one has to admit that Dr. DeLong is being very, very kind to this White House with theories #1 through #3.

Who picked Andrew Card? I have no idea. However, I do know that many of Bush's appointees were proposed by Richard Cheney--how else did Paul O'Neill get his job? Perhaps Rumsfeld got his job the same way. Perhaps Cheney either selected Andrew Card or sized him up as weak and happily approved of him.

There's a gloss of fanaticsm about Richard Cheney's positions and conduct since he re-emerged into public view, which I count as the day he took up the job of getting up Bush's vice-presidential choices. Bush has a personal history of heavily relying on older men as mentors, a trait of which I am sure Cheney is aware. What changed Cheney? A fear for foreign and domestic dangers that seems, from the outside, to border on the irrational? Greed? Lust for power?

Several commentors have come close to this, but here's my theory:

Bush43 is structured differently: an inner circle and an outer circle. O'Neill, Powell, Whitman, and of course Manetta are outsiders. Their involvment is only for show. Within the inner circle the principles may still be followed.

Aside to neil: that is a myth. Ford was very bright. You may also have heard that Ford, perhaps the most athletic President in his century, was uncoordinated. Another myth, based on a single incident and exaggerated by comedians, particularly Chevy Chase. Watch the Ford/Carter debates if ever replayed on C-Span. Two things will strike you: First, unlike today's debates these were about substantive policy matters (One was devote just to foreign policy, as an example). Second, these candidates could not have gotten through such debates without solid intelligence, even if you consider Ford's Poland gaffe. The presidential debate format was first dumbed down in 1980. No prizes for guessing why.

But O'Neill was supposed to be an *insider*. He was Cheney's buddy. Cheney really wanted him to anchor the domestic economic side.

Speaking of good books, I think an update of your book review page is long overdue, with all due respect.

The image of W that emerges from the O'Neill book (and from his interview Wednesday on NPR) is of a disinterested man waiting for someone to tell him what his opinion should be. Under that scenario, presenting opposing viewpoints for his consideration is a futile exercise, because he doesn't want to work that hard. One almost gets the sense that the meetings were held only to allow the participants to salve their consciences, because everyone knew the decision would be dictated by political considerations, and that W would be told what decision to make.

I think my impression about Ford's intelligence comes from pop culture (Chevy Chase / dumb jock stereotypes) and also from the circumstances in which he ascended to the presidency. The narrative as I learned it is that Nixon's criteria for a new VP included someone who was morally rock-solid and pleasntly dumb, didn't ask troublesome questions. Of course, it could very well be that the 21st-century 'dumb politician' is quite a bit worse than the 1970s-era dumb politician.

I disliked Nixon for the decisions he made, and I thought Bush I sometimes was off the track, but they at least had my respect for the efforts they put in to the job. Similarly, Carter was off the track at times, as well, and Clinton could have done some things better, but there was no question in anyone's mind that they did their homework.

I forgive Reagan because of his incipient Alzheimer's.

But W does not give his best efforts to the country he's supposed to be heading. He doesn't (can't?) do the work. And that cannot be forgiven.

I think it comes down to goals and priorities. Mr. Bush came into office with one overiding priority- Cutting taxes for the wealthy. When he won that battle 3 months in, people were asking what he was going to do during the rest of his adminstration. His administration did not develop a "purpose" until 9/11/2001.

The goals and priorities of Mr. O'Neill were not those of Mr. Bush. In that case, Mr. Cheney made a bad decision. He chose a personal friend over a team player. Mr. O'Neill was last in government, when the GOP was run by the chamber of commerce wing. Now it is run by the anit-communist/religious right/neoconfederate wingnuts. Mr. O'Neill was never on board with the wingnut tax cutting proposed by Mr. Bush. No wonder he did not get along. Mr. Bush really needed someone from the supply side funny farm that was on board with the policy but was willing to put up a false face to the international markets. Mr. Snow comes close to filling that role. Mr. Snow does not seem to be a supply sider, but does not seem to have strong objections to supply side ideology. He has enough experience with traditional economics to reassure those that would lose it if Grover Norquist or Larry Lindsay were Treasury Secretary.

Mr. Bush did not want an honest assessment of GOP supply side ideology. He did not want someone to tell him supply side was a crackpot theory. What Bush wanted was someone who could take supply side policy as embraced by Lindsay and Bush and make it acceptable and as workable as possible. This was not an easy task, and O"Neill was never up to it. From his perspective, Cheney was not an honest broker. From Cheney/Bush perspective, O'Neill was not on the team.

I think #1 (CEO mentality) definitely plays a role. There have been lots of commentators who note that Bush is the first MBA president, but they leave it that withhout following through. I think the business model is inappropriate for democratic governance. Indeed, anyone who ever did stint "fear & loathing" in the cubicle in corporate America can attest that executive offices have more in common with the Kremlin than with democracy.

I gotta go with Mr. Nolan on this one. I don't doubt Bush's intelligence, but I think he has a most remarkable lack of selflessness, or maturity. Perhaps it's because he looks at the presidency with a sense of entitlement, but he does only those parts of the job he likes (campaigning, making speeches before extremely hospitable audiences, schmoozing with the like-minded, landing on aircraft carriers) and goes through the motions with those that he doesn't but can't avoid (finances, meeting irritable foreigners) and dumps everything un-fun off on underlings (Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld), granting them carte-blanche authority. Whatever unpleasantness can't be farmed out (press conferences, speeches before crowds of those likely to disagree, holding subordinates to account) he avoids.

I think that it is a combination of all 4. I would also like to add a 5th possibility. When Bush 43 was elected by the Supreme Court he and his administration may have figured that they had a limited amount of time to do whatever they wanted to do, forget about waht they promised to do or not do. Then when the 2002 elections sort of validated what they were doing they thought, well why not people either don't care or they like what we are doing, so again lets just do it. Figuring that whatever conservative pet peives that they could take care of they would take care of and let some future president take care of it. By the way nothing that Bush 43 is doing should be unexpected after all he did them all while Governor of Texas didn't he and they ultimately failed there didn't they? THe Houston School system was not the model it was touted to be, the Texas state budget was not as strong as it should have been, etc.

I like the notion of #3. I had not focused on Cheney's heart attacks in the way Professor DeLong has. But, over the years, I have represented people who during the representation had serious heart attacks or problems, and in each case there has been a significant effect on their psyches. A recurring result is depression, and another is an increase in sudden outbursts of hostility that seem to have no real cause.

I do not think we should try pop psychology on these guys. After all, we are not licensed to do that, we are not writers for major papers, or broadcasters. Nevertheless, this one should not be written off.

I like the dementia theory, though it is dispiriting to learn that DeLong is only 43 (sigh). I'm so old...

Dementia has shaped a lot of US history. Reagan was quite demented throughout his second term, which may have been a good thing. Those that assumed power in his absence made some good decisions.

Several presidents, including Roosevelt, were incapacitated by dementing processes towards the end of their term.

Cheney has had bypass more than once, and there's a well known dementing process associated with that procedure.

It's a reasonably probable contributing factor.

I think justin nailed it the first time. Where you stand depends on where you sit. When you're the Chief of Staff, you're the sand in the gears to make sure that things get done right. When you're the VP, you try to steamroll that bastard Chief of Staff who keeps putting sand in your gears.

And as Brad pointed out elsewhere, O'Neill wasn't up to the job so he got steamrollered.

People are making assumptions about the economic thinking of the Bush administration that are not correct. The Bush administration does not believe in traditional economics. They adhere to a wingnut school of supply side economics. Like a Muslim in Sunday School, O'Neill was told, "Dont' bow to Mecca". He bowed to Mecca. What he had to offer was incompatible with Bush ideology so he had to go.

Imagine the Clinton administration having a supply-side economist (Laffer or a clone) sitting in the Secretary of Treasury chair. How much would that individual be in agreement with Clinton policy? How much value would they contribute to the administration? The answer to both questions is "very little" because the individual has an ideology that is incompatible with the administration.

Now reverse the situation. You have an administration full of supply siders. However, the guy sitting in the Treasury chair is a deficit hawk. How much is he going to be able to contribute to the discussion? The answer to that question is "very little". Thus you have the case of Paul O'Neill.

Cheney and O'Neill were friends in the same administration before the neocons/supply siders/neoconfederates/southern rednecks and religious fundies took over. Cheney changed with the flow. O'Neill did not. It was Cheney's fault for appointing someone who was in a camp (Rockerfellow Republican?) that was incompatible.

If an administration is going to pursue wingnut supply side economic policy, they should have someone a wingnut Treasury who can support the policy. O'Neill may be correct in principle, but he was the wrong guy for the wingnut job that this minority president wanted done.

In other words- the "honest brokers" were making it known to O'Neill that the administration was following supply side ideology and not conventional economics. All O'Neill had to offer was conventional economics but that was not what the president wanted.

It is clear from the book that O'Neill still does not get it. O'Neill does not understand that the administration is not operating under a traditional economic model. Thus he blames Lindsay and Cheney for not being "honest brokers" when it is he, O'Neill who is out of step.

bakho " O'Neill...out of step"
So for 23 months he was out of step? Maybe just the last few? And if it is true that Cheney selected O'Neill ( seems more likely than Dubya selecting anything at the moment), then it was for appearances rather than substance? And O'Neill came to work for 23 months making sure he was dressed appropriately and, day after day, just hoped his views wouldn't be trumped by Cheney or his 'supply siders'? (I think it's Brad's view that he should have stepped down sooner.) Could anyone stand that torture? Things must have changed.
I find no evidence, not a molecule, however mundane, of "economic thinking" by Bush in the pages of The Cost of Loyalty. Does 'Supply Siders' mean whatever happens to be in Cheney's brain?
"It was Cheney's fault for appointing someone who was in a camp (Rockerfellow Republican?) that was incompatible." A fault not recognized for 23 months? A fault tolerated for 23 months--after all they're old friends and all? Must have been Good friends...
"All O'Neill had to offer was conventional economics but that was not what the president wanted."
And you think Dubya can distinguish between conventional economics and non-conventional ( what a disservice to the English language!)?
My view is that he is not capable of the distinction. That owing to this difficulty that path won't be followed.
Giving this school of thought a title is fair enough but don't call it Economics.

Yes O'Neill was out of step for all 23 months. Supply Side is totally discredited in mainstream economics. It is not predictive, it does not work, it lacks epistemic value. It is hard for an academic economist to imagine that educated rational people can believe in supply side economics. (Rational, educated people also believe in short earth creationism but I digress). Yet many in the GOP especially the Reagan sychophants worship Reagan and Supply side economics. W. Bush is in that camp. His father was not. When GHWBush raised taxes he was pragmatic. To the true believers, he was an infidel. In this administration, O'Neill was an infidel among true believers.

Cheney picked O'Neill based on personal friendship and thought he could be loyal. As a true believer in supply side, Cheney did not understand that his friend O'Neill thought that supply side was a crackpot idea. Politeness probably got in the way of communication. O'Neill could not swallow the ideology and choked on the policy. O'Neill could not believe that anyone could possibly accept discredited supply side ideology as gospel especially not his friend Cheney and that is where he went wrong. Supply side is accepted by Cheney, Lindsay, and Bush. Others with reservations such as Daniels appear to go along to get along. Arguing with a true believer that supply side economics does not work is like trying to convince a committed creationist that the earth is over 4 billion years old. It is like asking someone to change their religious beliefs. If you want to go to their church and work with them, it does not help to engage them in arguments about the age of the earth. No matter how wrong supply side has proven to be, these people cannot be convinced otherwise.

You find no evidence of Bush economic thinking because supply side is ideology, not rational thought. Since O'Neill is from a traditional camp that discredits supply side, he fails to understand that the people in power can possibly believe in supply side. He failed to recognize the true position of his boss. This is why O'Neill had such problems communicating. The alarm bells sounding throughout the O'Neill economic model do not even exist in supply side ideology. "Deficits don't matter. Supply side works. Reagan proved it worked."

This administration is not overt about its economic beliefs because it invites derision from the economic community. However, their policy makes no sense using traditional economic models but does fit supply side doctrine even though they don't admit it. As Bush watchers know, "With Bush, what you see is not what you get, what you hear is not what you get, what you get is all you get." IOW- We get no explanation for the policy. The fundy stealth candidates for school board don't state publicly that prayer in school is on their agenda. It only pops up if they are elected and start pushing for prayer in school. People who believe in supply side won't say that when they run for office. We only discover that belief after they are in office and push supply side policies.

As for tolerating O'Neill for so long, it is difficult to fire a Treasury Secretary. Even more so by an administration that does not admit its mistakes. With the economy floundering, firing O'Neill was seen as the economic policy not working. Thus it happened right after the midterm elections, as far in front of the 04 elections as possible. They knew they were going to fire him even before he went on tour with Bono.

Can W distinguish traditional from supply side economics? No idea. There are people that arrive at beliefs through a rational thought process and there are people who uncritically accept dogma formulated by others. W believes in supply side, irrespective of whatever understanding he has of traditional economics.

Calmo- your last thought reflects the degree of discredit that supply side has among economists. That discredit is earned. However, that does not prevent the unlearned and untrained from believing it or glorifying it or even trying to run the country on those principles. Mr. Bush set back stem cell research in the US by at least four years by allowing religious hubris to trump the science. Why should we expect him to take a more rational approach to economics? Expect anti-intellectual policy from an anti-intellectual. This administration does not make policy based on rational intellectual discussions. Stop trying to analyze the Bush policies as if they were rational and they make a lot more sense.

Re: Nixon's selection of Ford.

Ford was a senior member of the GOP House Caucus, and more, a former member of the Warren Commission known as the 'CIA's man on the commission,' who kept the Agency informed as to Commission activities, knowledge and pursuits.

He was far more an insider than is appreciated by those not alive at the time or aware of his commission role, and could be relied upon to deliver the full and complete pre-emptive pardon to Nixon that he swore in his Congressional confirmation testimony he had no plans to do (which occasioned the very rare appearance he made as president to answer Congressional hearing inquiries concerning the pardon and its predicates in person, normally never done, as it is in conflict with the doctrine of separation of powers).

Ultimately, his role was to safeguard the tie-ins of what Nixon called the 'Bay of Pigs thing' to Watergate, which Haldeman in his memoirs said Nixon used to blackmail Helms into an obstruction of justice of acting-FBI Director L. Patrick Gray (iirc), by falsely asserting national security matters were at risk if the FBI investigated the Watergate burglars (many of whom were Bay of Pigs invasion veterans).

Haldeman further stated in his memoirs that he concluded Nixon's reference to the 'Bay of Pigs thing' was really to the JFK assassination. He later disavowed his own memoir, attributing this statement to an error by his memoir's co-writer.