Best and brightest leave Obama smarting

[Forkboy]

THE OIL GUSHER at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico is not just a political problem for President Obama. It’s a philosophical problem that challenges a central tenet of his approach to governing, his abiding faith in the judgment of experts. He’s practically in thrall to them.

Two months ago, Obama’s conviction about the safety of offshore oil rigs was strong enough that he proposed opening up 167 million acres of ocean to exploration. The preponderance of expert opinion about the safety of such an endeavor plainly influenced his decision. “It turns out,’’ he lectured critics worried about the potential environmental impact, “that oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills. They are technologically very advanced.’’

But this faith in the safety of offshore drilling proved spectacularly misplaced (and ill-timed). Last week, he reversed himself and imposed a moratorium. The catastrophe provides a neat illustration of how Obama thinks and what drives his decisions.

He values smarts, admires educational attainment, and sees decisions as intensely rational processes. With this goes a technocrat’s faith that government can enact them. The characteristic outlook of Obama specifically, and his administration generally, is a rigorous fealty to data and best practices.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/06/03/best_and_brightest_leave_obama_smarting/

[babylonsister]

1. So now Obama is 'in thrall' of the best and brightest, and this is a

bad thing. He should depend on the sycophants and ignorant to get things done, like his predecessor? And if that doesn't suit people, what exactly were other options he had to choose from?

I don't mind constructive criticism, but this is just ridiculous.

[Forkboy]

2. Did you read the article?

Or just the first 4 paragraphs that I posted? If you did read it then you know he goes on to say that it isn't bad thing.

[babylonsister]

5. Guilty. I read what you posted;

he started with that premise; maybe he should have started elsewhere if he wanted to be taken seriously. At least by me.

[zipplewrath]

8. Are you an executive

When I write for executives, I always put the "executive summary" at the beginning because they won't read beyond the first sentence. For anyone else I make an assertion, support it, then draw the conclusion. You're gonna find that most editors write that way.

[Teaser]

18. feh. he appeals to "common sense" over expertise

American's fetishize common sense to their detriment.

[Forkboy]

22. No, he appeals to adding common sense to the expertise.

[Teaser]

25. irrelevant and a waste of time

Common sense doesn't mean anything. It's just self aggrandizement for the intellectually impoverished.

[Forkboy]

26. Oy vey.

:eyes:

[zipplewrath]

4. Read the conclusion

It suggests he is overly reliant upon technical advice and doesn't apply skepticism or common sense.

I'd suggest this is how he is also making his decisions on Afghanistan.

[izquierdista]

3. The technology IS advanced

It's the managers that cut corners with it that you have to worry about.

[zipplewrath]

6. No

Ultimately these devices fail. One failure, of this magnitude, is intolerable. Since they don't have the capacity to plug these failures quickly, they shouldn't be allowed to drill them at all. You have a "single point failure" with no method of recovery.

[izquierdista]

19. Which can be taken into account

Norway has done a bit better listening to the engineers about having redundant safety systems than to the accountants drooling over the projected income.

You are right though, if you have "single point failures" in the plan, you shouldn't be allowed to proceed.

[zipplewrath]

23. Some one suggested relief wells first

I'm not sure that would work, but it is along the line of what should be done with these attempts. The relief wells should be drilled before one ever "hits oil". In reality, considering the magnitude of the damage, a "containment dome" approach would almost be required here. An independent structure, similar to what we demand of nuclear reactors.

[izquierdista]

30. I believe that's SOP elsewhere

I remember reading that in Europe and other places with too many "regulations", they require not only redundancy with the blowout preventer, but also relief wells be drilled alongside "just in case".

[Arkana]

7. I can fucking think of worse things

than relying on the judgment of the best and the brightest.

Jesus Christ, FUCK the Globe so much.

[BeFree]

9. So

If he is relying on the best and brightest, why are we still headed off the cliff?

[zipplewrath]

11. Because they can be disasterously wrong

The best and brightest approved the Bay of Pigs invasion.

[BeFree]

12. And

They approved having enough nukes to destroy the earth a trillion times faster and more effectively than the gusher of the gulf.

Yeah, no reasons to question the best and brightest.!! <sarcasm>

At least here on DU we can and do.

[zipplewrath]

10. Blind faith

The problem is "blindly" relying upon the "best and brightest".

And for what it's worth, they used the expression "best and brightest" for a reason. It was one of the common criticisms of Kennedy and his reliance upon the supposed "best and brightest" including Robert MacNamara. The alusion to Kennedy is going to be meaningful up in Boston.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

46. The amusing part to me was the reference to health care.

About how many CBO cost containment ideas were baked into the health care bill. The big ticket ideas (single-payer, federal leverage in negotiating prices, making the health care sector subject to anti-trust laws) in controlling our insane health care prices seemed to be thrown under the bus ab initio. There are big reasons why we pay more than double per capita what any other wealthy nation pays. The bill he signed addresses essentially none of that. Besides being extremely regressive, it does not address the run-away health care inflation or murdering and thieving of the "health insurance" industry in a significant way.

I don't see how the best and brightest were used in that instance except in the most circumambulatory fashion.

[zipplewrath]

47. Best and Brightest FROM healthcare

Some are asserting that he tends to prefer advice that comes from people WITHIN the very systems he's attempting to improve. It is often a source of expertise, but it is also liable to get you self serving advice. Stakeholders need to have a voice, but they need a strong balance, and some skepticism.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

49. I think you hit the nail on the head.

What frustrates me is that Obama is so young and perhaps did not have sufficient life experience to enter the bubble. One can easily forget who the *critical* stakeholders are: the consumers of a broken system.

For example, compulsory health insurance is, in my view, absurd.

To pretend that this bill is not an economic burden on most below the upper middle class is ostrich behavior. I would be better off if the bill had not been passed. That I am compelled to turn premiums over to the murdering, thieving (meant quite literally) "health insurance" companies, further bolsters my belief that Obama is no longer worthy of our support.

[zipplewrath]

50. Can't just sit out

It's been discussed a tad around here. Who's your "Ted Kennedy"? There's a short list, and it's not apparent that any of them would run. And of course that also gets you to a point where the question becomes "would they ultimately truly be better?" And some would claim that a new candidate in 2012 would have no chance of winning so you'd be handing the election to a republican.

He may not be worthy of "support", that's for you to decide. But potentially the only other fruitful strategy is to "force" a progressive congress upon him.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

51. I've seen Grayson's name bandied about.

I would work for him in a heart beat. But it wouldn't be a Ted Kennedy 1980 deal. It would be more like that liberal Republican congressman who ran against Nixon in the 1972 primaries (can't remember his name) or Buchanan running against Poppy in 1992, just a symbolic protest. It's a form of brinkmanship ("hey, the left matters") where you hope to hell Obama wins in 2012 after he gets the nomination, but that his very narrow victory serves as a cautionary tale for the center-right tendencies of Democrats who get elected in the age of Reagan.

Ultimately, I would see the point of such a rebellion to help catalyze a tipping point to actually *end* the age of Reagan (hopefully in 2016) and begin a new era where the word "liberal" and the phrase "class warfare" are no longer demonized. A new Teddy Roosevelt is what we need.

In the short term, I agree that a more liberal congress is probably the most effective way to lobby Obama to start doing the right thing. Unfortunately, history, the economy, the wars, BP, the health care bill, etc., are all vectors pointing in the opposite direction. I think he's already worse than Clinton, who due to a longer political resume was more savvy about "bipartisanship." Imagine what he'll be like when we lose seats in the House in November. Mamma mia, I can just hear him now: "The American people have spoken and I heard it loud and clear." Triangulation squared. God help us.

I think Obama could be saved from himself, but only by a Bastille-type movement of people. The swelling segment of the population that is desperately clinging to some semblance of a stake in this society, or worse. If we can hit a tipping point on that, I still believe Obama could be a potentially great leader. Who knows when the shrinkage of the American middle class or environmental factors might dramatically change the landscape? In the mean time, he just ain't up to the job and is generally making things worse. He was dealt a bad hand and he is making things much worse the way he's playing it.

[zipplewrath]

52. I do wish we had that tradition

You only have to go back to about 1970 when it was "traditional" for sitting presidents to still have to run against a primary challenger. I personally think it is "healthy", as long as it doesn't get like the whole Hillary/Obama/PUMA crap. It gives everyone a chance to "participate". And it allowed Bobby to "credibly" run against Johnson.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

54. '68 (Dems) and '72 (Repubs) were driven by Viet Nam,

as far as primary challenges, IMO. Reagan's '76 challenge was driven by ambition, ideology and the emergence of the nascent Christian right. I never figured out what Kennedy's '80 challenge was about (legacy driven?). Since then Buchanan is the only one I can remember, with Reagan, Clinton and Dubya escaping that hassle.

Afghanistan could do it. The drip-drip-drip of American and civilian casualties along with our fiscal woes could convince someone in the party to step up and say "enough." Hell, I'd even work for Alec Baldwin or another smart Hollywood type. Anybody with enough name recognition to point out on national TV that the emperor has no clothes.

[zipplewrath]

55. Carter was an establishment revolt

The Washington democrats didn't like Carter. And the book on him by the time Ted gets into the race was that Carter was gonna lose. They wanted someone in there that could "win". Teddy was literally "recruited" to run. There was probably some self fulfilling prophecy to it all. Washington democrats don't like him because he won't play "their" game. So they undermine him for 4 years, and then surprise surprise, he has trouble getting re-elected.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

57. I remember Carter's alienation from Congress.

But I didn't realize Teddy was recruited. Good stuff. Thanks for the repartee.

[Mimosa]

56. ITA. Healthcare reform bill won't help me and my spouse at all.

We'll probably fall through the cracks.

But it will help the big insurance corporations.

[Jakes Progress]

53. The problem is that he is not very good at identifying

"best" or "brightest". He seem to go with rich and convincing.

[Ozymanithrax]

13. Anti-intellectualism at the Boston common. Not surprised. n/t

[Forkboy]

14. Didn't read the article, did you?

[tekisui]

37. Would you please give a list of approved sources?

So far, AP, NYT, WaPo, FDL, Raw Story, LA Times and Boston Globe are out. As are all of the liberal talk show hosts, bloggers and writers.

Who is sanctioned as acceptable?

[Forkboy]

15. Thank you everyone for showing that DU is one of the most kneejerk places around.

God forbid anyone actually read the article beyond what was posted....

Be proud.

[zipplewrath]

16. Hey, I read it

Tended to agree with it too. Although I think it was probably better understood by folks in and around Boston because of it's allusion to Kennedy.

[DevonRex]

17. That's an excellent article on the way Obama thinks and how he makes

his decisions. Thanks Forkboy!

[Forkboy]

21. I thought so, too.

And you're welcome. :)

[DevonRex]

20. Everyone needs to read the entire article. It's very positive. K&R. nt

[zipplewrath]

24. Hmmm?

It's not a slam piece but the conclusion is he needs less faith and more skepticism. Not exactly "positive" unless you mean "constructive criticism".

[DevonRex]

32. I read it as Obama always goes with the expert opinions. When those opinions are disproved

he rethinks his position and changes course.

[zipplewrath]

33. But they were suggesting he do otherwise

They were suggesting more of a "blind faith" in the experts. i.e. no skeptical evaluation.

[DevonRex]

34. I'll re-read it after my dental appointment. nt

[Jennicut]

27. The only problem I have with this article is that eventually all experts can be found wrong on

something. It is why we are called humans and not robots.

I do find it amusing that so many people debate about Obama's personality and intellect. At least we do...Bush didn't have any intelligence. And his personality was like a child with his cutesy nicknames for everyone. Does Obama feel too little? Is he too robotic and lacking common sense? I don't really know...I don't know him personally.

[zipplewrath]

28. The lesson is in the conclusion

skepticism must be used in dealing with the "best and brightest". Even Stephen Hawking has to have his papers "peer reviewed". And PhD theses still have to be "defended". In using expert advice, it is important to apply skepticism to their advice. The best and the brightest NEED to be challenged, it's practically within their culture.

[freddie mertz]

38. And this is why free and open discussion is a MUST in virtually everything we do.

To critique or argue against a point of view or theory is not the same as an "attack."

Obama obviously sought exert advice, but my feeling coming away is that also made a POLITICAL decision to embrace the notion that off-shore drillign was "safe."

He can and should be held accountable for that decision.

[zipplewrath]

45. I think you're dead on.

His uncritical acceptance that drilling was "safe" was almost assuredly driven more by the political options that presented to him, than any real evidence that it was "safe". In a bit of lingustic irony, it meant he could take a supposedly "safe" position on energy policy. Advance cleaner energies while backstopping with more drilling. Everyone gets something.

But drilling wasn't safe, and advocating more drilling wasn't politically safe, and once again it is demonstrated that when you try to please everyone, sometimes you serve no one.

[TheKentuckian]

29. The a big part of the problem is he thinks "stakeholders" are the best and brightest

and that he favors corporate "best and brightest" over a wide range of expert views.

He needs a much more holistic view of who make up the experts. Too often it's just industry shills.

[Cha]

31. KR for reading later..

thanks Forkboy.

[ZombieHorde]

35. "But it should come as no shock that Obama orginally put his trust in the oil industry..."

since that’s where the bulk of expertise about offshore drilling lay."

President Obama needs to ask if someone is an expert first, or a paid employee first. Talking to an oil company employee about the safety of oil drilling is similar to talking to a tobacco company employee about the safety of tobacco smoking.

[depakid]

36. Apparently, his "best and brightest" didn't pay attention to Montara in August 2009

Wasn't until November that they stopped the oil spewing from that one.

Sounds to me like this cadre of folks succumbed to group think- and in so far as "best practices" were concerned:

:rofl:

It didn't take an expert or a detective to recognize that they weren't being followed by his own regulatory agencies, or by the companies drilling in the Gulf at the time of his pronouncement.

btw: the same process of exclusion of dissenters and cleaving to one set of similarly thinking "experts" can be seen in the health care debacle and economic "reforms" as well. In the economic reforms, it's been particularly noteworthy because those in the group excluded tended to be the ones who got it right about the causes of the meltdown before it occurred.

[xxqqqzme]

39. "...admires educational attainment..."

but evidently not the teachers!

[Admiral Loinpresser]

40. Shades of Robert McNamara.

And the Viet Nam quagmire. I wonder who is number cruncher for Afghanistan is? BO is weak minded.

[one_voice]

41. Excellent article...

thanks for posting. I agree with what was written, personally I prefer a president that's going to seek out the advice of experts.

[bleever]

42. "Going forward, he’s bound to put more stock in skepticism and common sense."

I'll be bolder: this is a pivotal moment in a national conversation about what government means and does, and who corporations are and what they care about.


Could be a Roosevelt-like pivotal moment. And I mean Teddy. If we get Franklin, that's good too.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

44. God, I hope you're right.

But BO has so far to go for redemption... how do you redeem Copenhagen? I consider that planetary treason, a la Bush. IMO, he would have to renounce Copenhagen, start an emergency conference to do it again and paying homage to the People's Climate Conference. Personally, I think that is about as likely as me plugging the BP oil leak.

But I hope you are right. I hope BO can come to realize he is not nearly as wise as he thinks he is. He needs to read his Socrates, who knew he didn't know and was therefore declared the wisest in the world.

[w4rma]

43. Then why did he ignore the experts who told him this would happen?

Is it because he let Rahm pick his experts and they are now all bean counter DLCers?

[brentspeak]

48. Obama values the sophist opinions of Wall Street and Corp. America's "experts"

Opinions from actual experts who are NOT bought-off...not so much.