I've just finished reading Ron
Suskind's 2011 book, Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington,
and the Education of a President. The book could probably be
called reportage, or even history, but there are several wisdom/truth
themes in it that ring deeply for me.
Ron Suskind |
One of these themes is the truth that
smarts – intellectual quickness, rapid memory retrieval,
debate-winning, assertiveness, extensive information, cleverness –
is not the same thing as wisdom.
The confusion between the two allows
all sorts of mischief in education, business, finance, politics and
just every aspect of social and personal life. Suskind gets to
that in the case of “the clever Mr. Summers” (Paul Volcker's
phrase):
p. 349: [Quoting
Summers:] “I can win any argument. I can win arguing either
side.”
p. 118: That
was [Summers'] feat,
an illusionist's trick calling for a certain true genius: he could
will into being the confidence that eluded others – those less
self-assured and, maybe, on humbler terms with the complexities of
the world.
p.84: It all
boils down to the classic Larry Summers problem: he can frame
arguments with such force and conviction that people think he knows
more than he does. Instead of looking at a record pockmarked with bad
decisions, people see his extemporaneous brilliance and let
themselves be dazzled. Summers' long career has come to look, more
and more, like one long demonstration of the difference between
wisdom and smarts.”
President Obama also has smarts like
this and I think that is why he is so very fond and faithful to
Summers despite countless, mystified attempts of good people to
indicate to Obama that something is wrong. We saw this early on when
Obama appointed Summers, Geithner and Rahm Emanuel:
p. 164: “At a
meeting in December 2008, Byron Dorgan...'You've picked the wrong
people,' he said to Obama, citing Geithner and Summers, both of whom
Dorgan knew. 'I don't understand how you could do this. You've picked
the wrong people!'”
Paul Volcker |
p.288: “[Paul
Volcker] told all this to Obama, in various ways. 'I think Obama
understands everything intellectually, very easily, near as I can
see. What we don't know is whether or not he has the courage to
follow through.”
Barack
Obama is obviously, like Larry Summers, very bright, quick, informed
and articulate. He is also very good at handling people, including
children, and a master politician, whereas Summers is not. No one
doubts that he is immensely talented. So why is it that he doesn't
follow through, “leads from behind,” is nowhere to be found at
the crucial moments, doesn't use the bully pulpit, finds backbone
more often against people who wish him well than against his true
enemies, is such a disappointment to us, and lets escape so many
opportunities to make a real, fundamental difference?
One
specific example cited by Suskind, p. 339, that brings to mind the
phrase, “an illusionist's trick;”
“The public
face of the administration was as gender-progressive as any in
history...[But, Geithner said in private,] 'The perception is that
women have real power, yet they all feel like shit.'"
I think think that
the answer to this mystifying problem is that Obama and Summers are
both very smart people who were able to get what they wanted because
they were bright. Summers, Rahm, Geithner are all clever people who
complement and supplement each other – and thus the seemingly
mystifying bond Obama has with them. He is ultimately one of them. To
quote Volcker once again:
p. 343: “He seems to feel he has all he needs in the clever Mr.
Summers. Together they're both so very confident.”
Obama and Summers |
Now, I
grew up in a town that had an unusually large number of punks and I
never imagined that one day I would be grateful for having had that
horrifying experience, which enabled me later to understand this.
These guys were physically strong and able; bright; their meanness
unacknowledged by officials. They got away with everything. They knew
when to suck up, when to be defiant. But they nonetheless were
violent, thieving, destructive, merciless punks. I moved out of that
hell-hole and spent many years around high-class places like Harvard
only to discover that the fundamental reality was every bit the same
there as in the small town. One was far more sophisticated, clever,
informed, than the other, but underneath they were basically the
same.
There
is one other wisdom theme in Suskind's book that I would like to
bring out in a future article but is so pertinent to what I've
written here that I will just mention it now. And that is his
insight that “going along with it” is a big thing. He speaks of
ordinary clients going along with and patronizing “Goldman or
JPMorgan or any number of large hedge funds not in spite of
the threat that those firms will act beyond the edge of propriety,
but because of it.
They are counting on it.”
Here,
let him describe the attitude and the consequence:
p. 404: “Let
them do whatever they want, just as long as I, as a valued customer,
get a piece of it. And if I can help in any way, I will.” This
is, of course, the way criminal syndicates rise up. It's an issue of
might...If it's not going to change, then why not be part of it? If
they didn't sign on, their competitor would.