Summers Out in Race for Fed Chairman

So this is unexpected:

Lawrence H. Summers, the former Treasury secretary and senior White House economic adviser, has withdrawn as a candidate for Federal Reserve chairman, in a startling development that raises urgent questions about who will lead the central bank when Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke steps down in four months.

….People close to the White House said Summers faced not only a rebellion among liberal Democrats but also other challenges, including a debate over whether to launch military strike against Syria that stretched out the Fed process and gave more time for opposition to build.

“It was just a perfect storm of bad timing,” said one person close to the White House, who requested anonymity in order to speak candidly about private deliberations. “It would have been absolute war, and the president would have had to spend all of his political capital. Larry decided not to drag him through it.”

I don’t have a lot to add to this. Obviously Summers concluded that the brewing liberal rebellion in the Senate, which already includes three Democrats publicly opposed to his nomination, was only likely to get worse. He’s probably right about that. Nonetheless, it was a decent thing to do, so props to him for gracefully removing himself from a post that he so obviously wanted.

The liberal revolt against Summers had lots of reasons. It was, as they say, overdetermined. But I’ll toss out one additional reason that hasn’t gotten much attention but might have been lurking in the background: President Obama’s renomination of Ben Bernanke as Fed chairman in 2009. It’s not that Democrats hated Bernanke, but his renomination certainly sent a message that only a non-liberal could be trusted to run the Fed. That rankled, and this time around it worked against Summers. He wasn’t perceived as conservative, obviously, but fairly or not, he was certainly perceived as less liberal than progressive Democrats had a right to expect from a fellow progressive Democrat.

In any case, the front runner now is certainly Janet Yellen, and presumably that’s who Obama will now nominate. She won’t have any trouble with Democrats, but it will certainly be interesting to see if Republicans, after having one of their own run the Fed for seven consecutive terms—always with plenty of support from Democrats—will allow Yellen’s nomination to proceed. Since it’s the Senate that has to confirm her, not the House, the odds are in her favor. But only modestly, I’d guess. You may have noticed that Republicans haven’t exactly been cordial toward Obama’s nominees lately. And there’s an election coming up. Don’t uncork the champagne quite yet.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend