Ezra Klein: Wolfowitz

« Bits and Pieces | Main | Tax Reform -- Now With 50% Less Yawning »

March 16, 2005

Wolfowitz

Bush is nominating Wolfowitz to head the World Bank. Wolfowitz. Sorry, just have to say that a few times to make it feel real. Wolfowitz. A guy who knows nothing about economics. Wolfowitz. A guy who's detested by Europeans as a main architect of our foreign policy. Wolfowitz. A guy who licks his comb.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised. They want John Bolton to become Ambassador to the UN. He's philosophically opposed to the very idea of it. They want down-home communications guru Karen Hughes to become central in remaking our image in the Arab world. She knows nothing about Islam. As a friend of Steve Clemons' said, "Maybe Bill Kristol should be nominated as successor to Kofi Annan, or Richard Perle. And James Woolsey should get UNICEF."

Steve tries, in his post, to explain that this isn't just another outrage in a long and distinguished line of them, it's the marker of something very different, very radical. "A period of major, dramatic, discontinuity". That sounds about right. This is a slap in the face of intellectualism, of the very idea that the criteria for these positions should be expertise and good intentions. This is a victory for patronage, for a president's power to project his will onto worldwide institutions, no matter how crazy or contradictory that will seems to the other members. Ugh. Wolfowitz.

Update: Think Progress has more on why this is a nightmare.

Update 2: Here's more on the changes Wolfowitz might make. CW seems to be that Bush wants him to reduce the focus on poverty alleviation, to dome on infrastructure, and generally be a bit harder-edged. You can follow a more informed discussion about it here.

Update 3: I should probably note that I'm not certain Wolfowitz will be bad at this job, he may well rise to the occasion. But there's no real way to predict that, he's not a trained economist nor a public figure, like Sam Brownback, who's shown a great and unexpected passion for international development. Without those markers, the only reason to choose him was to anger our allies and irritate the left. That's what pisses me off about the decision, it makes major appointments into just another venue for swagger and symbolism. The head of the World Bank should be the best from the pool of interested individuals qualified for the job. Wolfowitz doesn't qualify.

March 16, 2005 in Economy | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572d53ef00d83421d45453ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Wolfowitz:

» Wolfowitz Nominated for World Bank from Freiheit und Wissen
...Is Yglesias holding out hope that Wolfowitz will return to the days when the World Bank focused on market failures and development as opposed to the “market fundamentalism” it shares with the IMF? [Read More]

Tracked on Mar 16, 2005 12:54:19 PM

» Qualifications? We don't need no stinkin' qualifications! from Blogenlust
If there was ever any doubt that John Bolton's nomination as UN Ambassador was anything but a big F.U. to the rest of the world, I submit to you Exhibt A--Karen Hughes to the State Department to improve relations with [Read More]

Tracked on Mar 16, 2005 1:48:56 PM

» Wolfowitz and the World Bank from Fiat Lux
I was too young during the Vietnam War to understand who Robert McNamara was. I've learned more about him over the past several years (with a little help from The Fog of War and a few... [Read More]

Tracked on Mar 16, 2005 1:49:42 PM

» Wolfowitz/World Bank from The Big Lowitzki
Well...Paul Wolfowitz has been nominated for the President of the World Bank. There are many people talking about it, and they have much more knowledge than I have. Ezra talks about it here, and Think Progress has several posts here.... [Read More]

Tracked on Mar 16, 2005 2:31:47 PM

Tracked on Mar 16, 2005 2:55:43 PM

» Wolfowitz - The World Bank's Density from It's Recess-time Somewhere
George McFly from Back to the Future, er I mean, Paul Wolfowitz has been nominated by Mr. Bush to be the head of the World Bank....Wolfowitz: World Bank, my density has brought me to you. World Bank: What? [Read More]

Tracked on Mar 16, 2005 4:36:19 PM

» Whenever I hear "Karen Hughes," I think "public diplomacy" from Waveflux
Really. So it makes sense that when I hear "Paul Wolfowitz," I don't think "neocon hack who sold us a bill of goods and fed fifteen hundred American soldiers into an Iraqi woodchipper." I think "World Bank." Of course, this... [Read More]

Tracked on Mar 16, 2005 4:39:33 PM

» Armageddon, or How I Learned 2 Love the World Bank from After School Snack
And I heard, as it were, the noise of thunder: One of the four beasts saying: "Come and see." And I saw. And behold, a white horse… And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts, And I looked and behold: a pale horse. And his name, that s... [Read More]

Tracked on Mar 16, 2005 6:27:17 PM

Tracked on Mar 28, 2005 5:34:08 PM

Comments

I didn't see F9/11, but didn't Wolfie graduate to having someone else spit on his comb? Or is that a downgrade? I'm not sure...

Posted by: verplanck colvin | Mar 16, 2005 12:00:55 PM

What's the hidden agenda here? I can't imagine Bush naming Wolfowitz to this position without expecting to somehow change US policy vis-a-vis the world bank. Anyone got a clue what change Wolfowitz is expected to push?

Posted by: aphrael | Mar 16, 2005 12:05:10 PM

Okay, I have a really contrarian view on this.

Wouldn't we rather have people like Bolton and Wolfowitz out of the way and in non-influential posts (with little influence or access to the West Wing) like the World Bank and the UN rather than, say, guiding post-war Iraq policy at the Defense Department or, God help us, crafting our arms control policy.

Look, it is outrageous (so, btw, is their appt. at their old job where they actually shaped policy), but bumping people who have failed at the previous job to a position that sounds prestigious but is somewhat toothless has a long tradition in Washington. The same thing -- with the same position -- happened with McNamara.

As far as Hughes goes, as absurd as it sounds, it might be the best we can possibly hope for in this Admin. Think about it: one of the few WH advisors part of the Texas Mafia with Bush's complete trust has to actually listen to Arab concerns regarding our foreign policy. For an Administration with so little self-awareness concerning how they come off in the world, this might be an improvement.

Posted by: Chris Rasmussen | Mar 16, 2005 12:12:07 PM

The problem I see, Chris, is who will replace them. Remember John Ashcroft? No one could be as bad of an AG as him, right?

As for Karen Huges, who said she was going to listen? Her previous jobs have been to tell people how it is, not to receive input and change things accordingly. Her role will be a propaganda mouthpiece, a much better one than her predecessors. It's a one-way street.

Posted by: verplanck colvin | Mar 16, 2005 12:20:32 PM

The idea that wolfie would be anything but an unmitigated disaster is a bit of a joke. name one thing he has done right in his entire career and I might agree to listen to your fence-sitting. Yes, it is better than having him named secretary of denfense, but only in the way that a kick in the nuts is better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.
thankfully, he has been ruled out for the job.

Posted by: rev.paperboy | Mar 16, 2005 12:45:26 PM

Verplanck -- completely agree with you on how important the replacements will be. Rozen on her blog is suggesting Cambone (bad) or Armitage (not bad) as possible replacements for Wolfowitz.

As far as Hughes, I hope you are wrong -- and I suspect you have a point. But if she's going to be a propaganda mouthpiece, she's a staggeringly bad choice.

Posted by: Chris Rasmussen | Mar 16, 2005 12:56:49 PM

Why's that, Chris? Karen's perfect for the job. She's relentlessly on-message. She can lie to your face without blinking, even when she knows you know it's untrue (I'm thinking of that anecdote where a reporter and Hughes hear Bush swear, followed by Hughes' assertion that Bush never swears.)

Boy, this administration has given me the cynicism of a 40-year old with the body of a 27-year old. Thanks, Mr. President.

Posted by: verplanck colvin | Mar 16, 2005 1:01:35 PM

Because she's completely unable to persaude people who haven't swallowed the Bush Koolaid, which includes 100% of the stated target audience. As propaganda, it doesn't work, unless the real target audience happens to be the domestic, GOP audience (which, I guess, is your point).

Posted by: Chris Rasmussen | Mar 16, 2005 1:12:44 PM

This is all about the money. Moving Wolfie and other neocon-artists into these positions allows Bush's buccaneers access to more global cash.
F%#k the poor!

Posted by: C Paris | Mar 16, 2005 1:22:21 PM

Didn't wolfowitz write a memo saying that the US should prevent China from lifting itself out of poverty? I've got newsmax articles that say things to that effect, but having trouble pulling up the actual quote.

I think after the "abolish all laws" amendment I am done with Bush outrage. I think it's really impossible to top that one.

Posted by: niq | Mar 16, 2005 2:22:13 PM

The combination of the Wolfowitz and Bolton nominations is a huge "up yours" to the rest of the world, especially Europe. These irresponsible appointments will continue our loss of prestige and influence, as the rest of the world concludes they'd better learn to work without the lunatic US. In about 30 years we'll really, really wish Kerry had won the election.

Posted by: Rebecca Allen, PhD | Mar 16, 2005 10:27:07 PM

Don't forget -- Laura's been tapped to tackle inner city gangs!

I think the guiding aesthetic for the second term is farce.

Posted by: Royko | Mar 16, 2005 11:28:46 PM

You don't think they might be trying to provoke a fight, or some kind of incident, do you?

Alienating America from the rest of the world might play well to the Republicans' base - those guys who think the UN is just a global conspiracy against US?

When things go wrong, they can say - "See! See! The rest of the world HATES AMERICA! Democrats agree with the rest of the world, which means they too HATE AMERICA! Vote for us, because we're strong on defense!"

Posted by: Cameron | Mar 17, 2005 5:07:44 AM

sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES